Patna High Court
Amit Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bail bonds, sureties, and verification of his criminal antecedent under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Amit Kumar Singh, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under the Bihar Excise Act for alleged possession of 883.08 litres of liquor and seizure of two motorcycles. He argued that he was not caught in possession, was not the owner of the vehicles, and the case against him relied on a confessional statement of a co‑accused made in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioner’s criminal antecedent of four cases, three of which are under the Excise Act. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.20,000 bail bond with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order further stipulated that if the petitioner is found to have more than four prior cases, the bail would not be confirmed, but if the antecedent remains at four cases, the provisional bail would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted despite the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and alleged involvement in excise offences.
- Whether a confessional statement made by a co‑accused in police custody can be relied upon to deny bail.
- Whether the conditions prescribed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS are applicable to the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a), 32, 36, 41
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482(2) BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25359 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2023 Thana- MUSRIGHRARI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Amit Kumar Singh S/o Jhagru Singh Resident of village- Fatehpur Wala Ward
no. 06, P.S - Tajpur, District - Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 10-07-2026 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), 32, 36
and 41 of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of four cases out of which three cases are
under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 883.08 liters
of liquor from a pick up vehicle and two motorcycles were seized.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of
any of the seized vehicles and came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Nirshan in police custody which does not
have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25359 of 2026(4) dt.10-07-2026
2/2
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 before the learned Trial Court within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on Provisional
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20000/- (Rupees
Twenty Thousand) 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 Mushrigharari P.S. Case
No. 09 of 2023 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 more than four
cases 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 has
antecedent of four cases only, in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.