Patna High Court
Arvind SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail with conditions, subject to verification of the petitioners' criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Arvind Singh and Mukesh Yadav, were implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 30(d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 for alleged possession of liquor and raw material. They applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the alleged contraband was recovered from a location not belonging to them and that no arrest was made at the spot, thus there was no conscious possession. The State opposed the bail. The Court, applying Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and ordered verification of the petitioners' criminal antecedents. The order stipulated that if verification shows petitioner 1 has more than one prior case or petitioner 2 has any prior case, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, the bail would be confirmed. The decision reflects the Court’s balancing of the right to liberty with the need to ensure compliance with bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. in view of the alleged offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the absence of recovery from the petitioners' conscious possession and the location of the contraband affect 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
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- criminal antecedent
- conscious possession
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27257 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-946 Year-2025 Thana- FATUA District- Patna
======================================================
1. Arvind Singh S/o- Late Chhatrapati Singh Resident of Village- Raipur
Balwa Lachu Tola PS- Fatuha District- Patna
2. Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Kumar S/o- Tinku Kumar @ Tinku Yadav
Resident of Village- Raipur Balwa (Balwa Tal) PS- Fatuha District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Megha Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Rohit, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 1. Heard Ms. Megha Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and
30(d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act,
2022.
3. Ms. Megha Singh, learned Advocate appears for
the petitioners and submits that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent
of one case under the Excise Act and petitioner no. 2 is a person
with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 9 litres of
liquor concealed under the straw near cattle shed of petitioner
no. 1 alogn with 2100 litres of raw material which was
destroyed and 7 litres of liquor was also recovered from two
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27257 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
different places.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the
petitioners but then is adjacent to the cattle shed of petitioner no.
1 and they came to be implicated at the instance of the local
person but then the name of the person who disclosed the name
of the petitioners is not disclosed in the FIR which casts an
aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioners have
not been implicated based on the secret information.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, let the
petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or
surrender 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) each 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 Fatuha P.S. Case No. 946 of 2025, subject to the conditions
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27257 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
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 petitioners
and if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of more
than one case and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of even one
case, it would be presumed that petitioners had concealed their
antecedent before this Court, at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed, but, if it is found on verification that
petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of only one case and petitioner
no. 2 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…