Patna High Court
Vinod KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to provisional anticipatory bail subject to conditions and verification of his antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Vinod Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after a case was registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 48 litres of liquor from two motorcycles. He argued that he had a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of arrest, and was implicated only because he owned one of the seized vehicles, which was misused by another person. The State opposed the bail, contending that ownership of the vehicle linked the petitioner to the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 and two sureties, with the condition that the trial court verify the petitioner’s antecedent. If a prior case is discovered, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed immediately.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence is sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- vehicle ownership
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26548 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-143 Year-2024 Thana- BARHAT District- Jamui
======================================================
Vinod Kumar S/o Harihar Yadav Resident of Village and P.S.- Barhat,
District- Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prakash Mahto, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 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 the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 48 litres of liquor from two different motorcycles.
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 one of the seized vehicles. It is next submitted that no
prudent person would use his own vehicle for committing an
occurrence and, thus, would create evidence against himself
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26548 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
and, hence, would get implicated. It is also submitted that
petitioner was completely unaware that Rajeev Kumar would
misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged who was also
apprehended from the spot along with Uchit Kumar and Ranjan
Manjhi.
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 Barhat P.S. Case
No. 143 of 2024, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26548 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
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…