Patna High Court
Hardev KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, three brothers from Samastipur, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (PS Bibhutipur No.453/2025) alleging offences under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023, the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and the Arms Act. They claim they were falsely implicated, asserting a clean record and that the alleged assault on the informant's son did not cause any injury. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations involve assault while intoxicated, seizure of liquor and live cartridges, and that the investigation is at a nascent stage. The Court, after hearing both sides, was not persuaded to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the alleged offences under the B.N.S. Act, Prohibition and Excise Act and Arms Act.
- Whether the allegations of false implication and lack of injury to the complainant's son affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 352
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- narcotic offences
- excise law
- arms act
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23180 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-453 Year-2025 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Hardev Kumar S/O Late Ramvilash Das Resident of Village- Kadiyahi, P.S-
Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur.
2. Amarjeet Kumar @ Amarjeet Kuma S/O Late Ramvilash Das Resident of
Village- Kadiyahi, P.S- Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur.
3. Rajesh Kumar S/O Late Ramvilash Das Resident of Village- Kadiyahi, P.S-
Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhav Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 09-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Bibhutipur P.S. Case No.453/2025, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 352
and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 of
the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and allegation of
recovery of 750 ml of liquor along with two live cartridges from
a motorcycle. It is next submitted that informant alleges that on
16.11.2025 at about 7 P.M., petitioners in an intoxicated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23180 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
2/2
condition abused and assaulted the son of the informant namely
Pankaj Kumar causing injury on head.
4. Learned counsel submits that petitioners have been
falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next
submitted that though it is alleged that petitioners assaulted the
son of the informant causing injury on head but then son of the
informant has not suffered any injury.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that it is not a
case under the Excise Act rather allegation is that petitioners in
an intoxicated condition assaulted the son of the informant and a
motorcycle was seized from which liquor along with cartridges
were also recovered. It is further submitted that the case is in its
nascent stages of investigtion.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioners
is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.