Amit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32615 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2019 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP.
                                                   District- Kishanganj
                 ======================================================
                 Amit Kumar S/o Ramesh Yadav R/vill- Bailhari, Ward no. 10 P.O- Baihari,
                 P.S.- Singhesar, Distt- Madhepura

                                                                            ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :    Mr.Jainendra Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :    Mr.Lakshmi Kant Sharma
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   22-06-2026                  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

                   Sections 30(a) and 56(b) 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 155.76 litres of liquor from a pick-up van.

                                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 van.

                   It is next submitted that no prudent person would use his own
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32615 of 2026(4) dt.22-06-2026
                                            2/3




          vehicle for committing a crime and thus, would create evidence

          against himself and hence, would get implicated. It is further

          submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that his driver

          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

          Special Excise P.S. Case No.140 of 2019 bearing P.R. No.11 of

          2019, 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
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32615 of 2026(4) dt.22-06-2026
                                                           3/3




                         found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, then it

                         would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining

                         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