Patna High Court

Raja KuraishiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 1 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of his antecedent, under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Summary

Raja Kuraishi, a resident of Ward No. 26 in Sitamarhi, feared arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 69.600 litres of liquor from a field that does not belong to him. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of arrest, and that the FIR does not name the informant, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedent. The order is subject to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, and if any antecedent is discovered, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed forthwith.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act
Whether the lack of possession of the alleged liquor and the petitioner’s clean antecedent justify the grant of anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bihar Excise Act
Section 30
clean antecedent
possession
high court
Section 482

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21523 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2025 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Raja Kuraishi Son of Md. Niyaj Kuraishi @ Neyaz Quraishi Resident of
                 Village- Rahmaniya Tola Ward No. 26 (Mehsaul Purvi), P.S.- Sitamarhi,
                 District- Sitamarhi

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Uday Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Vinod Shanker Modi
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   01-04-2026               1.    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                             2.    The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 69.600 litres of liquor from west side of a field

                   situated at Ward No. 26.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was

                   recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged

                   recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21523 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
                                            2/3




          and is accessible to villagers at large and he came to be

          implicated at the instance of local people, but then the name of

          the person, who disclosed the name of the petitioner, is not

          disclosed in the FIR, which casts an aspersion on the case of the

          prosecution, when petitioner admittedly is a person with clean

          antecedent.

                   5.     Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                   6.     Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the

          event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks

          from today, be released on Provisional anticipatory bail on

          furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with

          two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

          learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in

          connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 74 of 2025, subject to

          the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

                   7.     It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court

          shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the

          event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case

          then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of

          seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this

          Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21523 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
                                                          3/3




                        confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a

                        person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional

                        anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…