Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Brijesh Kumar @ Briesh SahaniversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions and verification of antecedents.

Summary

The petitioner, Brijesh Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 210 litres of liquor from a sugarcane field. The petitioner argued that he was not arrested at the spot, the alleged liquor was not in his possession, and the land where it was found was public and not owned by him, suggesting a possible false implication by a hostile watchman. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs 5,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedents. The order further stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the provisional bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438(2) CrPC.
  • Whether the alleged facts under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act justify denial of bail.
  • Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent warrants denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Section 438
  • Excise Act
  • bail bonds
  • criminal antecedent
  • provisional bail

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27972 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2026 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Brijesh Kumar @ Briesh Sahani son of Nandlal Sahani @ Amawash Sahani
                 @ Nandalal Sahani Resident of Mehawa P.S- Sugauli, Dist- East Champaran

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Kundan Rathore Alias Kundan Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Khurshid Anwar
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   28-04-2026                  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

                   Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.

                                3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act

                   and allegation is of recovery of 210 litres of liquor from a

                   sugarcane field.

                                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 is accessible to public at large and he came to be implicated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27972 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
                                            2/3




          at the instance of Chaukidar with whom 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. It is

          next submitted that police in majority of cases implicating

          innocent persons either at the behest of Chaukidar, local person,

          secret information and confessional statement in a mechanical

          manner without holding a proper investigation.

                       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.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 Sugauli P. S. Case No.29 of 2026, subject to the conditions

          laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

                       7. The application stands allowed.
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27972 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
                                                           3/3




                                      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 more than one case, then

                         it 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 has antecedent of one case, in that event, the

                         provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-

U          T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.