Patna High Court
Arunjay Singh @ Arunjay PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions and verification of his antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Arunjay Singh, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 132.50 litres of liquor from his Omni car. He argued that he had a clean antecedent, was not present at the spot of seizure, and was implicated merely as the owner of the vehicle, claiming he was unaware of the driver’s alleged misuse. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties, subject to verification of his antecedent and compliance with Section 438(2) CrPC conditions. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC to a vehicle owner implicated in an offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence is sufficient ground for arrest and denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- vehicle owner liability
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23537 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2021 Thana- HASPURA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Arunjay Singh @ Arunjay Prasad S/o- Ram Prasad Singh Resident of vill-
Purnadih, PS- Haspura, Dist- Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Adarsh Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mritunjay Kumar Nirala
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 09-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 132.50 litres of liquor from an Omni Car.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
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
his own vehicle for committing a crime and thus, would create
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23537 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
2/3
evidence against himself and hence, would get implicated. It is
further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that
his driver would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged
who fled from the spot.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum 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
Haspura P. S. Case No.43 of 2021, subject to the conditions laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner 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 obtaining
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23537 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before this Court,
in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall
not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…