Patna High Court
Md. Imran Alam @ Imran @ Md. ImranversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court provisionally granted anticipatory bail subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent and compliance with the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Imran Alam, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly recovering 78.75 litres of liquor from a vehicle, although he was not arrested at the scene and did not have the liquor in his conscious possession. The police investigation, after a cursory inquiry, concluded that the petitioner was innocent, but the magistrate nonetheless took cognizance of the case. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that there was no material basis for his arrest and that the police report exonerated him. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warranted detention. The High Court, applying Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Narcotic and Smuggled Substances Act, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.500 bond, two sureties, and a verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed, whereas a clean record would lead to immediate confirmation of the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the investigating agency’s report exonerates the petitioner but the magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence.
- Whether the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. are satisfied for granting provisional anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic and Smuggled Substances Act — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- police exoneration
- cognizance
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31196 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2020 Thana- KOCHADHAMAN District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Md. Imran Alam @ Imran @ Md. Imran S/O Md. Shahid Alam Resident of
Molbi Tola, Sontha, P.S.- Kochadhaman, District- Kishanganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amal Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Khurshid Anwar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 22-06-2026 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 the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 78.750 litres of liquor from a car.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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 vehicle. It is further submitted that the police, after
threadbare investigation, submitted final form in favour of the
petitioner but the learned Magistrate differing with the police
report took cognizance. It is next submitted that when one
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31196 of 2026(3) dt.22-06-2026
2/3
investigating agency, after threadbare investigation, came to a
considered conclusion that petitioner is innocent, whether it
would be prudent for the Court to send the petitioner to jail
based on an order of cognizance which came to be taken based
on the same police report which exonerated the petitioner of the
allegation.
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 appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let 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 Kochadhaman P.S.
Case No. 103 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case,
it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31196 of 2026(3) dt.22-06-2026
3/3
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.