Patna High Court

Md. SajjadversusThe State of Bihar

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

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedent and compliance with the conditions imposed.

Summary

The petitioner, Md. Sajjad, was implicated in an excise case (Case No. 912 of 2024) for the alleged recovery of 1,300 litres of liquor from a motorcycle he owned. He argued that he had a clean criminal record, was not present at the spot of seizure, and had no knowledge of the vehicle's misuse by another individual. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The High Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a modest bail bond and two sureties, and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would be presumed concealed and the provisional order would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed. The decision hinged on the principles of anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the excise case under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Excise Act.

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Securities Act (BNSS) — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
excise law
vehicle ownership
clean antecedent
Section 482

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23758 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-912 Year-2024 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Kishanganj
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Sajjad Son of Late Md. Salim Resident of Village- Saudagarpatti, P.S.-
                 Kishanganj, District- Kishanganj

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :         Mr.Rajeev Ranjan
                 For the Opposite Party/s :         Mr.Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap
                 ======================================================
                 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

                   32(3) 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 1.300 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.

                             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

                   his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23758 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
                                            2/3




          create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,

          it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware

          that Md. Lalu Ansari would misuse the vehicle in the manner as

          alleged, who was also apprehended from the spot along with

          Kamal Deo Rai.

                   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 Excise P.S. Case No. 912 of 2024 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.23758 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…