Patna High Court
Santosh RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bail bonds, sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s antecedents.
Summary
Santosh Rai, a resident of Hamidpur, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act for alleged recovery of 4,798.08 litres of liquor from four vehicles. He asserted a clean criminal record, denied possession of the seized liquor or ownership of the vehicles, and claimed he was implicated by a hostile chowkidar. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish bail bonds of Rs.500 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his antecedents. If any prior case is discovered, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed forthwith. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of clean antecedent and lack of possession justifies provisional anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- liquor seizure
- clean antecedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30717 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-349 Year-2026 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Santosh Rai Son of Shambhu Rai Resident of Village- Hamidpur, P.S.-
Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Indu Kumari Srivastava
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 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 Sections 30(a), 41 of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 4798.08 litres of liquor from four different vehicles
as detailed in the FIR. 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 any of the
seized vehicles and he came to be implicated at the instance of
chowkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is also
submitted that if chowkidar was aware of the involvement of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30717 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform the
police prior to institution of the instant FIR which casts an
aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner
admittedly is a person with clean antecedent.
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 Ahiyapur P.S. Case No.349/2026, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30717 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
antecedent, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…