Patna High Court
Rakesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner's antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 229.320 litres of liquor from a poultry farm owned by Md. Aslam. He argued that he was not apprehended at the spot, had no possession of the liquor, and had no connection to the premises or the alleged co‑accused. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The High Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner surrender within six weeks, furnish a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, and submit to verification of his criminal antecedents. The order was made subject to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with a provision that if more than two prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the lack of seizure from the petitioner's possession and the alleged location of the liquor justify granting bail.
- Whether the court may impose conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS while granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
- liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30353 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2026 Thana- Panapur District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar S/O Fakira Mahto R/O Village- Jagarnathpur Dokra, P.S-
Saraiya, Dist.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kaushal Kishor
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Meena Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 15-05-2026 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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases and allegation is of
recovery of 229.320 liters of liquor from poultry farm of Md.
Aslam.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing
was recovered from his conscious possession and even alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
and he has no concern or relation with Md. Aslam and he came
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30353 of 2026(3) dt.15-05-2026
2/3
to be implicated based on secret information which is the easiest
way to implicate someone without holding a proper
investigation.
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 before the learned Trial Court
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
10000/- (Rupees Ten 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 Panapur
Kariyat P.S. Case No. 15 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 more
than two cases 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30353 of 2026(3) dt.15-05-2026
3/3
verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of two
cases only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.