Patna High Court
Ram Babu RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and verification of antecedents.
Summary
Ram Babu Ray sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under IPC sections 272 and 273 and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly possessing 180 ml of liquor recovered from a motorcycle he owned. He argued that he had no prior criminal record, was not arrested at the spot, and was unaware that another person, Sanjeev Kumar, misused his vehicle. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.500 bond with two sureties and subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed immediately. The decision was based on the provisions of Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. despite the alleged liquor possession.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence makes the petitioner liable.
- How the verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent affects the confirmation of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 272, 273
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal antecedent
- vehicle ownership
- liquor seizure
- IPC 272
- IPC 273
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- CrPC 438
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23425 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2018 Thana- BASOPATTI District- Madhubani
======================================================
Ram Babu Ray S/O Buchan Ray R/o villlage - Karuna, P.S. - Harlakhi,
District - Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Prasad, 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 272 and
273 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 180 ml. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23425 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
2/3
and, thus, would create evidence against himself and, hence,
would get implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was
completely unaware that Sanjeev 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.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 Basopatti P.S. Case
No. 125 of 2018, 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 even one case,
it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23425 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
3/3
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…