Patna High Court
Sultan @ Md. SultanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Sultan, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 564 litres of liquor from a tractor. He contended that he was not in possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicle, and was implicated solely on a confessional statement made by another individual, Bikash, while in police custody, which he argued lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, asserting the seriousness of the offence. The High Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties and appear before the trial court within six weeks. The order also stipulated that the trial court verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents; if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed, whereas confirmation would follow if only one antecedent is discovered. The decision reflects a conditional grant of anticipatory bail pending verification of the petitioner’s criminal history.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the confessional statement of Bikash, made in police custody, can be the sole basis for arrest.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Bihar Negotiable Sale and Settlement Act (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
- Section 30(a) Bihar Excise Act
- Section 482(2) BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33062 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2026 Thana- AMBA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Sultan @ Md. Sultan S/O Sulaman Chaudhari R/O Village- Bikraramganj,
Ward No.- 27, P.S.- Bikramganj, District- Rohtas, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Shaheen Begum
======================================================
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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 564 liters of liquor from a tractor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of the
seized vehicle and came to be implicated based on confessional
statement of Bikash in police custody which does not have any
evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33062 of 2026(3) dt.22-06-2026
2/2
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
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 Trial Court within a period
of six weeks from today, be released on Provisional anticipatory
bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)
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 Amba P.S. Case No. 17 of 2026 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event
if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case then
it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of seeking
anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this Court, as
such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed,
but after verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of
one case only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.