Patna High Court
Suresh Pasi @ Saresh PasiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The anticipatory bail application is not maintainable as the petitioner is not an accused in the case.
Summary
The petitioner, Suresh Pasi, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a case involving alleged seizure of 5,440.14 litres of liquor and firearms under the Bihar Excise Act and the Arms Act. He claimed he was implicated because he was purportedly the owner of one of the seized vehicles, although the police investigation found no evidence linking him to the offence and his name did not appear in the FIR or statements. The State argued that the petitioner was not an accused and therefore the anticipatory bail petition was not maintainable. The court examined the case diary and the SHO's testimony, confirming that the petitioner had no involvement and that the application was filed on erroneous advice. Consequently, the court held that the anticipatory bail application could not be entertained and dismissed it.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when the applicant is not an accused in the proceeding
- Whether mere alleged ownership of a seized vehicle suffices to grant anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b) a, 26, 30
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- Bihar Excise Act
- Arms Act
- non-accused
- bail jurisdiction
- police investigation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24836 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-328 Year-2019 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Suresh Pasi @ Saresh Pasi S/O Rameshwar Pasi @ Rameshwar Rai R/O
Village-Kurmorhi, PS-Sikarhatta, Distt- BHojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 20-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act read with Sections 25(1-b) a, 26 and 30 of the
Arms Act.
3. The SHO, Kargahar P.S, in compliance of the order
dated 18.04.2026, is present in the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24836 of 2026(3) dt.20-04-2026
2/4
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 5440.14 liters of liquor from eight different vehicles
and from a godown as detailed in the FIR along with a rifle, a
pistol and 49 live cartridges from possession of Mahavir.
5. At this stage, the learned APP, based on instruction
of the SHO, submits that anticipatory bail application is not
maintainable for the reason that petitioner is not an accused in
the case. It is submitted that it absolutely does not stand to
reason that on what basis, the petitioner before the learned
District Court moved an application seeking anticipatory bail on
the ground that he came to be implicated based on the fact that
he is owner of the seized vehicle when petitioner is not the
owner of any of the seized vehicles.
6. The learned APP next submits that one of the
seized vehicles belonged to Ram Bharos Singh, but then Ram
Bharos Singh and his wife both died and they had three sons and
two of them reside outside India at Dubai and the third son is
also staying outside Bihar, as such, during the course of
investigation someone gave information that vehicle of Ram
Bharos Singh was purchased by the petitioner, as such, the
Investigating Officer of the case called the petitioner to enquire
that as to whether he has purchased the vehicle or not, but then
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24836 of 2026(3) dt.20-04-2026
3/4
the petitioner denied purchasing the vehicle, thereafter, the said
aspect was investigated and nothing transpired during the course
of investigation connecting the petitioner with the offence.
7. The SHO, who is present in the Court, also asserts
and submits that police never knocked the door of the petitioner
since his involvement in the case has not transpired.
8. At this stage, the learned APP submits that he has
gone through the case diary and from perusal of the same also it
would manifest that nowhere the name of the petitioner figures
nor Mahavir in his confessional statement has taken the name of
the petitioner.
9. The learned APP, thus, submits that it appears that
the petitioner, on wrong advice, filed the anticipatory bail
application before the learned District Court.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner fairly submits, after going through the case diary
brought by the SHO, that it appears that the petitioner based on
wrong advice filed the anticipatory bail before the learned
District Court, but then submits that since petitioner is not an
accused in the case, as such, there was no apprehension.
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the anticipatory bail application is held not maintainable.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24836 of 2026(3) dt.20-04-2026
4/4
12. The personal appearance of the SHO, Kargahar P.S.
is dispensed with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…