Patna High Court
Mukesh Kumar @ Amit Kumar GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and the gravity of the alleged offences outweighed the claim of lack of knowledge.
Summary
Mukesh Kumar, the petitioner, applied for anticipatory bail anticipating arrest in a case involving alleged possession of large quantities of liquor, a pistol with loaded magazine, iron magazines, motorcycles and an e-rickshaw. The charges stem from offences under Sections 310(4), 310(5), 121(1), 121(2), 132, 109 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, various provisions of the Arms Act and the Excise Act. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated, arguing that the rented house where the contraband was recovered was occupied by a tenant, Sonu Kumar, without his knowledge, and produced a rent agreement to support this. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the petitioner’s antecedent of four criminal cases and questioning the credibility of the rent agreement. After considering the submissions, the Court held that the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and the seriousness of the offences outweighed the alleged lack of knowledge, and therefore denied anticipatory bail. The petition for anticipatory bail was consequently rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a person with prior criminal antecedents in a case involving serious offences under the Arms Act, Excise Act and Bihar Narcotic Substances Act.
- Whether the existence of a rent agreement and the claim of non-knowledge of the tenant's activities can negate liability for the alleged offences.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-A)a, 25(1-AA), 25(1-B)a, 26(i), 26(ii), 27, 35
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 109, 121(1), 121(2), 132, 310(4), 310(5)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 30(F)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal antecedent
- rent agreement
- Arms Act
- Excise Act
- false implication
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2900 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-328 Year-2025 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL District-
Begusarai
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar @ Amit Kumar Gupta S/O Manoj Kumar Gupta R/O Vill.-
Saligrami,P.S- Sahebpur Kamal, Dist.- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shubhesh Pandey
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Asha Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in Sahebpur Kamal P. S. Case No.328 of 2025 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 310(4), 310(5),
121(1), 121(2), 132, 109 of the B.N.S., Sections 25(1-A)a, 25(1-
AA), 25(1-B)a, 26(i), 26(ii), 27, 35 of the Arms Act and
Sections 30(a) and 30(F) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of four cases and allegation is of
recovery of 94 litres of liquor of codeine from the house of the
petitioner along with a pistol with loaded magazine and 21
pieces of iron magazine and 21 pieces of semi-manufactured of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2900 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/3
iron magazine and two motorcycle along with an e-rickshaw.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is fairly submitted that it is not disputed that the
house belongs to the petitioner, but then, the petitioner had
given the house on rent to Sonu Kumar and it was Sonu who
was indulging in such activity without the knowledge of the
petitioner.
5. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the anticipatory
bail application and submits that petitioner is a criminal who has
antecedent of four cases. It is also submitted that though a plea
has been taken that the house from where the alleged recovery
was made was given on rent to Sonu and in support of the same,
a rent agreement is also annexed, but then, it is submitted that
the rent agreement can be a ploy even. It is further submitted
that if petitioner is innocent, in that event, final form would be
submitted exonerating him of the allegation, but then, presently
keeping his criminal antecedent in mind, the privilege of
anticipatory bail be not granted.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2900 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/3
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.