Patna High Court
Sunil KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court provisionally granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bail bond, sureties, and verification of his criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2013 for allegedly possessing 5 litres of liquor recovered from his motorcycle. He argued that he had no prior criminal record, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of arrest, and was unaware that a friend misused his vehicle. The State opposed the bail, contending that the alleged possession warranted detention. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., pending verification of the petitioner’s antecedents. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed immediately.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case of alleged possession of liquor under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2013.
- Whether the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence creates sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- excise law
- possession of liquor
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24689 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-664 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Jamui
======================================================
Sunil Kumar S/o Krishna Prashad Singh Resident of Village- Sono, P.S.-
Sono, District- Jamui, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Prasad, A.P.P
======================================================
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 offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and
32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act,
2013.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 5 litres 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.24689 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
and, thus, would create evidence against himself and, hence,
would get implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was
completely unaware that his friend would misuse the vehicle in
the manner as alleged who also fled 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 JAM P.S. Case No.
664 of 2025, 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
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24689 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
3/3
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…