Patna High Court
Sonu @ Md. SonuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted on the condition of verification of the petitioner’s clean antecedent, as the alleged offence did not involve his conscious possession.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonu, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case under Section 30(A) of the Excise Act, alleging that 32.22 litres of liquor were recovered from his motorcycle. He argued that he had no prior criminal record, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of seizure, and was unaware of his friend's alleged misuse of the vehicle. The State opposed the bail, contending that the seizure implicated the petitioner. The High Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500 with two sureties, subject to verification of his antecedents. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in a case under Section 30(A) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of personal possession of the seized liquor and clean antecedent justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(A)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- seizure of liquor
- motor vehicle
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30670 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-581 Year-2021 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna
======================================================
Sonu @ Md. Sonu S/o- Late Md. Wajir Alam Resident of Mohalla- Sangi
Masjid, Phulwarisharif, PS- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravi Shanker Pankaj
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(A) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 32.22 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be
implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized
motorcycle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would
use his own vehicle for committing a crime and thus, would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30670 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
create evidence against himself and hence, would get
implicated. It is further 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. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
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 Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum 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
Phulwarisharif P. S. Case No.581 of 2021, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner 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 obtaining
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30670 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before this Court,
in that event, the present 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)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…