Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Mukesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent and compliance with the stipulated conditions.

Summary

Mukesh Kumar sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 14.805 litres of liquor from a garbage site. He argued that he has a clean criminal record, that the liquor was not in his conscious possession, and that the alleged recovery occurred at a location not belonging to him, with the FIR lacking the informant's name. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500 with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent. If any prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, the provisional bail would be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the alleged offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Bihar Excise Act
  • Section 30(a)
  • clean antecedent
  • FIR
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29123 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-140 Year-2026 Thana- SULTANGANJ District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Mukesh Kumar S/o SuSurendra Choudhary @ Sulendra Chaudhary R/o Lata
                 Kunj Gali, Musallahpur hat, Professor Colony, Shahganj, P.S. - Sultanganj,
                 Dist. - Patna.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Mithilesh Kr. Arya
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Ms.Veena Kumari Jaiswal
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   22-06-2026               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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 14.805 litres of liquor from a garbage.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was

                   recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged

                   recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner

                   and he came to be implicated at the instance of local people, but
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29123 of 2026(3) dt.22-06-2026
                                            2/3




          then the name of the person, who disclosed the name of the

          petitioner, is not disclosed in the FIR, which casts an aspersion

          on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner has not been

          implicated based on secret information.

                   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 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 Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 140 of 2026 subject

          to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the

          BNSS.

                   7.     It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court

          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 would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of

          seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this

          Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be

          confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29123 of 2026(3) dt.22-06-2026
                                                          3/3




                        person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional

                        anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

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