Patna High Court
Deepak SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail for the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Deepak Singh, feared arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of 760 litres of spirit from a Bolero vehicle. He argued that he was not the vehicle's owner, was not arrested on the spot, and was implicated solely on secret information, with only one prior case on record. The State opposed his anticipatory bail application. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, requiring a bail bond of Rs.5,000 and two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent by the trial court. If more than one prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if only one, the bail will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments (Security) Act.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. are satisfied.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments (Security) Act — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- bail bond
- Cr.P.C. 438
- B.N.S.S. 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28740 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-147 Year-2025 Thana- KASMA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Deepak Singh S/o- Satyendra Narayan Singh @ Satyanarayan Singh R/v-
Nima Anjan PS - Madanpur Dist- Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 04-05-2026 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 the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of recovery of
760 litres of spirit from a Bolero vehilce.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted that
petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to be
implicated based on the secret information which is the easiest way
to implicate someone without holding a proper investigation of the
case. It is next submitted that of late the police have started
implicating accused having criminal antecedent in cases relating to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28740 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
2/2
excise for obvious reason.
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 appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let 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.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 Kasma P.S. Case No. 147 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and
if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case, it
would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his antecedent
before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in that
event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed
but if it is found on verification that petitioner has antecedent of only
one case in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…