Patna High Court

Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 24 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.

Summary

Petitioner Rahul Kumar sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of 694.2 litres of liquor from two motorcycles. He contended that he was not in possession of the liquor, did not own the motorcycles, and was implicated by a hostile chowkidar. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after hearing both sides, granted provisional anticipatory bail on condition of furnishing a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent by the trial court. If the trial court finds more than one prior case, the provisional bail will not be confirmed; if only one prior case is found, the bail will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the case registered under the Bihar Excise Act.
Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of possession and ownership of the seized motorcycles negates the charge.
Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent warrants denial of anticipatory bail.

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bihar Excise Act
Section 30
Section 482
liquor seizure
criminal antecedent
provisional bail

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25771 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2024 Thana- BARGAINIA District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Rahul Kumar Son of Nagendra Sahni Resident of Village - Madhu Chhapra,
                 P.S.- Bairgania, Dist.- Sitamarhi

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Dwij Raj
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   24-04-2026               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

                   30(c) of the Bihar Excise Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of

                   recovery of 694.2 litres of liquor from two motorcycles.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was

                   recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of

                   any of the seized motorcycles and he came to be implicated at

                   the instance of Chowkidar with whom he is on an inimical term.

                   It is next submitted that if Chowkidar was aware about the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25771 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
                                            2/3




          involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence, then why he did

          not inform the police prior to institution of the instant FIR,

          which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.

                   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 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. 5,000/- (Rupees

          Five 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 Bairgania P.S. Case

          No. 162 of 2024 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 one

          case 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 one case in that event the provisional anticipatory
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25771 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
                                                          3/3




                        bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…