Patna High Court
Bittu Kumar @ Bitu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court provisionally granted anticipatory bail subject to bail bond, sureties, and verification of antecedents, with confirmation contingent on the number of prior cases.
Summary
The petitioner, Bittu Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, where 157.860 litres of liquor were allegedly recovered from a field adjacent to his house. He argued that the liquor was not in his possession, the location did not belong to him, and the complaint was motivated by an inimical chowkidar. The State opposed the bail. The High Court granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedents. If more than one prior case is found, the bail would be presumed concealed and not confirmed; if only one prior case is found, the bail would be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act?
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents affect the confirmation of provisional anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27558 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2026 Thana- MOTIPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Bittu Kumar @ Bitu Kumar S/o Shambhu Rai @ Shambhu Kumar Ray R/o
Vill- Sadha Dambar, P.S.- Motipur, Distt- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 09-07-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 157.860 litres of liquor from a field
behind the house of petitioner. It is next submitted that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
but then is adjacent to his house and he came to be implicated at
the instance of chowkidar with whom he is on an inimical term.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27558 of 2026(4) dt.09-07-2026
2/2
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, 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.5000/- (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 Motipur P.S. Case No.74/2026, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than
one case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had
concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if
on verification it is found that petitioner has antecedent of one
case, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.