Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Bachu Kumar @ Bachu SahaniversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

Provisional anticipatory bail is granted subject to bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, with confirmation contingent on the outcome of that verification.

Summary

The petitioner, Bachu Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of 210 litres of liquor from a bamboo orchard not in his possession. He has two prior excise cases, but the alleged seizure occurred on land accessible to villagers and no arrest was made at the spot. The petitioner argued that the FIR was based on secret information and lacked proper investigation. The State opposed the bail. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, stating that if more than two prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in view of the alleged offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
  • Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • excise offence
  • liquor seizure
  • criminal antecedent
  • Section 30
  • Section 438
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22379 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-475 Year-2025 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Bachu Kumar @ Bachu Sahani S/O Bashisth Sahani Resident of Village-
                 Pakri, P.S- Pakri, P.S- Kanti, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
                                                                            ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                     ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Ms. Pushpa Sinha No. 1, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-04-2026                  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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 210 litres of liquor from a bamboo

                   orchard.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   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

                   and is accessible to villagers at large. It is further submitted that

                   petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of the local
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22379 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                            2/3




          person 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 has not

          been implicated based on the secret information. It is next

          submitted that once an accused is implicated in a case relating to

          excise the police start implicating mechanically either at the

          instance of the Chawkidar, local person, confessional statement

          or secret information without holding a proper investigation of

          the case.

                       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 appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let 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.10,000/-

          (Rupees Ten Thousand) 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 Kanti P.S. Case

          No. 475 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under

          Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

                       7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22379 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                                       3/3




                     Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner

                     and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than two

                     cases, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his

                     antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail

                     application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order

                     shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that

                     petitioner has antecedent of only two cases in that event the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.