Patna High Court
Anil PanditversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Since the petitioner was not in actual possession of the liquor and was merely the owner of the vehicle, the court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of his criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Anil Pandit, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 20 litres of liquor from a motorcycle he owned. He argued that he was not arrested on the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, and was unaware that another person, Chandan Kumar, misused his vehicle. The State opposed the bail. The Court considered that mere ownership of the vehicle does not constitute participation in the offence and that there was no evidence of the petitioner’s personal involvement. Accordingly, the Court granted provisional anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. If more than one antecedent is found, the bail may be cancelled; otherwise, it will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. despite allegations of liquor possession linked to his vehicle.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle, without proof of conscious possession, is sufficient grounds for arrest and denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- possession
- vehicle ownership
- liquor seizure
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- Section 438 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23155 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2025 Thana- CHANAN District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Anil Pandit Son of Muneshwar Pandit Resident of Village- Keval, P.O.-
Guguldih, P.S.- Gidhaur, District- Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailesh Anand, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kanhiya Kishor, 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 offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and
32 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of
recovery of 20 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted
that petitioner came to be implicated based on the fact that he is
owner of the seized vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent
person would use his own vehicle for committing an occurrence
and, thus, would create evidence against himself and, hence,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23155 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/3
would get implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was
completely unaware that Chandan Kumar would misuse the
vehicle in the manner as alleged who was also apprehended
from the spot.
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.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 Chanan P.S. Case
No. 135 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
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one
case, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23155 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/3
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner has antecedent of only one case in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…