Patna High Court
Dharmendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Dharmendra Kumar, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 for the alleged recovery of two litres of liquor from a motorcycle he owned. He argued that he had a clean criminal record, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of arrest, and was unaware that the vehicle was being misused by others. The State opposed his application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the submissions and granted a provisional anticipatory bail, requiring a bail bond of Rs.500 and two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent. The order further stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed, whereas a clean antecedent would lead to immediate confirmation of the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence makes the owner liable for the offence.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent influences 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
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26564 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2024 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui
======================================================
Dharmendra Kumar S/o Jai Prakash Pandit R/o Village - Karhara, Police
Station - Jhajha, Dist. - Jamui (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, 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 (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 2 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
and, thus, would create evidence against himself and, hence,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26564 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
would get implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was
completely unaware that Baldev Rai would misuse the vehicle
in the manner as alleged who was also apprehended from the
spot along with Sunil Yadav and Guddu Yadav.
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 Jamui (Excise) P.S.
Case No. 164 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
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26564 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
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…