Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Mukul Kumar @ A. J.versusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail is not warranted; the application is rejected.

Summary

The petitioner Mukul Kumar applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a 2020 case involving alleged violation of Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for possession of 375 ml of English liquor. The prosecution alleged that a motorcycle was stopped, liquor was seized, and the petitioner’s name surfaced during investigation as the supplier. The petitioner contended he was not present at the scene and no liquor was found in his possession. The State argued that the petitioner was the liquor seller and highlighted his prior criminal record and involvement in multiple cases. After considering the submissions and the material on record, the Court found no basis for granting anticipatory bail and rejected the application, directing the petitioner to surrender within four weeks for trial. The order also directed the trial court to dispose of the matter promptly upon surrender.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the circumstances of the case
  • Whether the material on record establishes a prima facie case sufficient to deny anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Section 279 IPC
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • liquor seizure
  • criminal antecedent
  • bail denial

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30505 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-234 Year-2020 Thana- SHRIKRISHNAPURI District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Mukul Kumar @ A. J. Son of Madan Mohan Singh R/o- House No.- 84,
                 Punaichak, P.S.- Shastrinagar, District - Patna, Bihar.
                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                         ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Arun Bharti, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Kanhiya Kishor, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   18-05-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State

                   through virtual mode.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Shrikrishnapuri P.S. Case No. 234 of 2020 for the

                   offence under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and Section

                   30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act lodged on

                   15.09.2020 by the informant, Laldhari Yadav.

                                3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged

                   that a motorcycle coming from AN College area was signaled to

                   stop. It tried to escape but the Police apprehended it. The person

                   apprehended gave the name as Vikram Pal and the person sitting

                   was Kishan Kumar Prajapati. Upon search, 375 ml of English

                   liquor recovered/seized. Upon investigation, they gave the name

                   of the person from whom the purchase took place and in that

                   background, the name of the petitioner cropped up. This led to the
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
                                                      2/2




                    FIR.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he

                    was not present at the place of occurrence nor anything has been

                    recovered from his conscious possession.

                                 5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that he is

                    the person who was selling the liquor. Further, a perusal of the

                    paragraph-3 would show that he has criminal antecedent of the

                    same nature and altogether, he is involved in five criminal cases

                    and the present matter is of the year 2020 and he has come before

                    this Court belatedly six years later.

                                 6. Taking into account the submissions of the parties as

                    also the facts that have come up, no case of anticipatory bail is

                    made out.

                                 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands

                    rejected.

                                 8. If, however, the petitioner surrenders within four

                    weeks, the concerned Court shall take up the matter and dispose it

                    of preferably on the same day.



                                                   (Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-

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.