Patna High Court
Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail was granted, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent cases.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 274 and 275 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act, alleging recovery of liquor from his motorcycle and a house. He argued that he was not in actual possession of the liquor, was not arrested on the spot, and was unaware that his friend misused his vehicle. The State opposed the bail. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. It held that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; if only one antecedent exists, the bail would be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the circumstances.
- Whether ownership of a vehicle used in the alleged offence suffices to deny bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 274, 275, 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- possession
- vehicle ownership
- criminal antecedent
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 274
- Section 275
- Section 30(a)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.276 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1005 Year-2025 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Rahul Kumar S/o Sanjay Paswan R/o Mirja Sahdulla Khatri Chak, P.S.-
Mahua, Dist.- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Hemant Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 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 274 and
275 of the BNS and Section 30(a) 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 120 litres of liquor from a motorcycle and 10 litres
of liquor from house of Raghnath Chaudhary and Manoj
Chaudhary.
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 he came to be
implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.276 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
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 would get implicated,
it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware
that his friend would misuse the vehicle in the manner as
alleged.
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 Mahua
P.S. Case No. 1005 of 2025, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.276 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
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 bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…