Patna High Court

Vivek KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 9 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond, sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.

Summary

Vivek Kumar, the owner of an e‑rickshaw from which 81 litres of liquor was seized, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, alleging that he was not present at the spot of seizure and had no conscious possession of the liquor. The petitioner argued that he has a clean antecedent and that mere ownership of the vehicle should not constitute grounds for arrest. The State opposed the bail, contending that the seizure implicated the petitioner. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. If any antecedent is found, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed forthwith.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case arising under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence is sufficient ground for arrest and denial of bail.
Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent is a requisite condition for confirming anticipatory bail.

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bihar Excise Act
Section 30(a)
vehicle ownership
clean antecedent
Section 482
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23301 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-270 Year-2025 Thana- PUNAURA District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Vivek Kumar Son of Shatrughan Raut @ Shatrudhan Raut @ Shatrughan
                 Patel R/o Village - Bhawadepur Got @ Bhawdepur Got, Ward no. 14, P.S.-
                 Sitamarhi, Dist. - Sitamarhi.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Santosh Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   09-04-2026               1.    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad.

                             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 81 litres of liquor from E-Rickshaw.

                             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 he 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23301 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
                                            2/3




          his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would

          create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,

          it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware

          that Sunil would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged,

          who was also apprehended from the spot along with Rajnath.

                   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 Punaura P.S. Case No. 270 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

          confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23301 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
                                                          3/3




                        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…