Patna High Court
Rakesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedents and compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, was implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act for the alleged recovery of 225 litres of liquor from his vehicle. He argued that he had a clean antecedent, was not present at the spot of seizure, and that the liquor was in the possession of his driver who fled. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The High Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his antecedents. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed immediately. The decision hinged on the application of Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. and the principles governing anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. in a case of alleged liquor seizure under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act
- Whether the ownership of the vehicle and the alleged involvement of the driver suffice to justify denial of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- liquor seizure
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
- Section 482
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28081 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1446 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Gaya
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar Son of Basudev Yadav Resident of Village - Bumuar P.S.-
Manpur District -Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Pushp Raj Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-04-2026 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 Sections 30(a) and
32(3) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 225 litres of liquor from a car. It is next submitted
that 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
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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28081 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
2/3
It is also submitted that the petitioner was completely unaware
that his driver would misuse his vehicle in the manner as alleged
who also fled from the spot.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
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.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 Excise P.S. Case No.1446/2025, 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 even 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 is a person with clean
antecedent, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28081 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
3/3
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…