Patna High Court
Prashant Kumar @ Prashant Kumar Yadav @ Prashant YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail was granted subject to conditions, pending verification of the petitioner's antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Prashant Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 for allegedly possessing 17.28 litres of liquor recovered from a motorcycle. He argued that he had no prior criminal record, the liquor was not found in his immediate possession, and the accusation was based on an unnamed informant's confessional statement, which was not recorded in the FIR. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court, considering the petitioner's clean antecedent and the procedural deficiencies, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify his antecedents. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
- Whether the procedural irregularities in the FIR and the lack of direct possession justify anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. Act — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- confessional statement
- Section 482(2)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29488 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2026 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria
======================================================
Prashant Kumar @ Prashant Kumar Yadav @ Prashant Yadav S/o Dharmbeer
Yadav Resident Of Village- Muradpur, Ps- Parbatta, Dist- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Kishor Poddar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-07-2026 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
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 17.28 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. It is next
submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such
nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and is not
the owner of the seized motorcycle and he came to be
implicated based on confessional statement of local person but
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 admittedly is a
person with clean antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29488 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
2/2
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 Parbatta P.S. Case No.15/2026, 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
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.