Patna High Court
Ranjeet Saw @ Ranjeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjeet Saw, applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 30(a), 30(c), 36 and 56(c) of the Excise Act for allegedly recovering 15 litres of liquor from Pappu Singh's premises. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not arrested at the scene, had no possession of the liquor, and was implicated by a watchman without any prior police notification. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500 with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent and compliance with Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The court clarified that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail may be revoked; otherwise, the provisional order will be confirmed. The application for anticipatory bail was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in the present excise case
- Whether the facts alleged by the prosecution justify denial of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 30(c), 36, 56(c)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- provisional bail
- criminal antecedent
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27840 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2026 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria
======================================================
Ranjeet Saw @ Ranjeet Kumar S/o Nago Saw @ Nago Sah R/o Village -
Chhoti Telauchh PS - Chautham, District - Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chandan Kumar Kashyap
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Fahimuddin
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 30(a), 30(c), 36 and 56(c) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 15 litres of liquor from basa of Pappu Singh.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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
and petitioner has not concern or relation with Pappu and he
came to be implicated at the instance of Chaukidar with whom
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27840 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
2/3
he is on an inimical term. It is further submitted that if
Chaukidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioners in
the occurrence, then why he did not inform the police prior to
institution of the present F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the
case of the prosecution.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
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 Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum 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
Chautham P. S. Case No.10 of 2026, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is
found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, then it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27840 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
3/3
would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining
anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before this Court,
in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall
not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…