Patna High Court

Rajendra MukhiyaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 4 May 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

Provisional anticipatory bail is granted subject to bail bond, sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s antecedents.

Summary

The petitioner, Rajendra Mukhiya, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, where 102.240 litres of liquor were recovered from two motorcycles he owned. He argued that he had no prior criminal record, was not present at the spot of seizure, and was unaware that his friend misused his vehicle. The State opposed the bail, contending the alleged involvement. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, requiring a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents by the trial court. If a prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if he is found to have a clean record, the bail will be confirmed immediately.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022
Whether the ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence suffices to justify denial of anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 30(a) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
clean antecedent
vehicle ownership
bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29297 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-370 Year-2025 Thana- JOGAPATTI District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Rajendra Mukhiya Son of Bachcha Mukhiya R/O Vill.- Jaralpur Khutwaniya,
                 P.S.- Yogapatti, District- West Champaran
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Umesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, 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 is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 102.240 litres of liquor from two motorcycles.

                                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 came to be implicated based on the fact that he is

                   owner of one of the seized vehicles. It is next submitted that no

                   prudent person would use his own vehicle for committing an

                   occurrence and, thus, would create evidence against himself
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29297 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
                                            2/3




          and, hence, would get implicated. It is also submitted that

          petitioner was completely unaware that his friend would misuse

          the vehicle in the manner as alleged who also fled from the spot.

                       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.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 Yogapatti P.S. Case

          No. 370 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 even 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
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29297 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
                                                       3/3




                     petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…