Patna High Court
Ankit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Ankit Kumar, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 52.5 litres of liquor from a public area. He was not arrested at the scene and no liquor was found in his possession. The petitioner claimed that a chowkidar, with whom he had a personal dispute, falsely implicated him to protect the real offender. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing bail bonds and sureties, and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent before confirming the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the allegations under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the alleged false implication by the chowkidar affects the merits of the bail application.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- false implication
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482(2)
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23130 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-193 Year-2025 Thana- CHACKMEHSI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Ankit Kumar Son of Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Mahto R/o Vill. - Somnaha
Baratol, Chakmehsi, Dist. - Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amar Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar
======================================================
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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of
recovery of 52.5 litres of liquor from a bush at ward no. 10.
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
and is accessible to public at large and he came to be implicated
at the instance of Chowkidar with whom he is on an inimical
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23130 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/3
term. It is next submitted that if Chowkidar was aware about
the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence, then why he
did not inform the police prior to institution of the instant FIR,
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is
also submitted that it appears that the Chowkidar in order to
save the real culprit falsely implicated the petitioner because of
his 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 before the learned trial court within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on Provisional
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees
Five 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 Chakmehsi P.S. Case
No. 193 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 more than one
case then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23130 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/3
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this
Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner has
antecedent of one case in that event the provisional anticipatory
bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…