Patna High Court
Sunil KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted because the petitioner had no conscious possession of the liquor, a clean antecedent, and ownership of the vehicle alone did not constitute participation in the offence.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail after a case was registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act alleging that 6 litres of liquor were recovered from his motorcycle. He argued that he was not in possession of the liquor, had a clean antecedent, and was implicated only because he owned the vehicle which his friend allegedly misused. The State opposed the bail. The court considered that ownership of the vehicle alone does not constitute conscious possession of the contraband and that a person with no prior criminal record merits bail. Accordingly, the court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail‑bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent. The order will be confirmed if the trial court finds the petitioner’s antecedent clean; otherwise it will be set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether mere ownership of a vehicle used in the alleged offence justifies arrest.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean criminal antecedent warrants anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Section 30
- Section 438
- clean antecedent
- vehicle ownership
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24133 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-394 Year-2025 Thana- KAUWAKOL District- Nawada
======================================================
Sunil Kumar S/O Gauri Mahto R/O Village - Mahudar, P.S- Kawakol,Dist-
Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Verma
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Nazir Ansari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-04-2026 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 06 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
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
motorcycle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would
use his own vehicle for committing a crime and thus, would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24133 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
2/3
create evidence against himself and hence, would get
implicated. It is further submitted that petitioner was completely
unaware that his friend would misuse the vehicle in the manner
as alleged who also fled from the spot whom the petitioner
intended to sell the motorcycle.
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
Kawakol P. S. Case No.394 of 2025, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24133 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
3/3
would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining
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…