Patna High Court

Sachit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

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

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and verification of his criminal antecedent.

Summary

The petitioner, Sachit Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, relating to alleged recovery of liquor from a motorcycle and a house. He argued that he was not in possession of the seized liquor, did not own the vehicle, and was implicated solely on secret information without proper investigation. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a Rs.5,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent within six weeks. If more than one prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if only one prior case is found, the bail will be confirmed. The order is subject to the provisions of Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the case
Whether the petitioner’s alleged prior criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
excise law
seizure of liquor
secret information
criminal antecedent
section 438 CrPC

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23398 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-343 Year-2024 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Sachit Kumar S/o Bandhu Yadav @ Banhu Yadav R/o Village- South Telhua,
                 Ward No. 04, P.S- Nautan, Dist- West Champaran.
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Sachida Nand Rai, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 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.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and

                   41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act,

                   2022.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 5.760 litres of liquor from a

                   motorcycle and 9 litres of liquor from the house of Rupesh

                   Yadav.

                                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 is neither the owner of the seized vehicle nor has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23398 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
                                            2/3




          any concern or relation with Ramesh Yadav. It is next submitted

          that petitioner came to be implicated based on the secret

          information which the easiest way to implicate someone without

          holding the 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.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 Nautan P.S. Case

          No. 343 of 2024, 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.23398 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
                                                       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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…