Patna High Court

MASIDUR RAHMANversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 20 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted provisionally, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents and compliance with conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

Summary

Masidur Rahman, the owner of a Bolero pickup, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 after 609.84 litres of liquor were recovered from his vehicle. He was not arrested at the spot and the liquor was not found in his conscious possession; the allegation is that his driver, who fled, misused the vehicle. The petitioner, claiming a clean antecedent, sought anticipatory bail, arguing that ownership alone does not constitute participation in the offence. The State opposed the bail. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to a Rs.500 bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal record, with the order to be confirmed if he is found to have no antecedents.

Issues considered

Whether the owner of a vehicle from which liquor is seized can be granted anticipatory bail under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of conscious possession justify anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
liquor seizure
vehicle ownership
Section 30(a)
Section 482(2)
clean antecedent
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24678 of 2026
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2025 Thana- Roshna District- Katihar
                 ======================================================
                 MASIDUR RAHMAN S/o- Sultan Ansari R/v- Lakshmipur Goyal Nagar Ps-
                 Gazole Dist- Malda W.B

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   20-04-2026                  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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of

                   Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 609.84 litres of liquor from a Bolero pick up

                   vehicle. It is next submitted 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 an

                   occurrence and thus would create evidence against himself and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24678 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
                                            2/3




          hence would get implicated. It is also submitted that the

          petitioner was completely unaware that his driver would misuse

          his vehicle in the manner as alleged who also fled from the spot.

                       4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                       5. 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 Roshna P.S. Case No.49/2025, subject to the

          conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

                       6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter

          shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the

          event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one

          case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had

          concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the

          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
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24678 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
                                                         3/3




                       shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                 (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-

U        T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…