Patna High Court
Rishu kumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, holding that the petitioner is entitled to bail despite being merely the owner of the vehicle.
Summary
The petitioner, Rishu Kumar, owner of a Swift Dzire, was implicated in an excise case (Gaya Excise P.S. Case No. 1072 of 2025) for allegedly transporting 114 litres of illegal liquor. The prosecution alleged that the driver, Priyanshu Kumar, who is the petitioner’s cousin, was caught with the liquor and identified the petitioner as the vehicle owner. The petitioner contended that he had no knowledge or involvement in the offence and that his inclusion was solely due to ownership of the car. He applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, arguing lack of specific allegation and clean antecedent. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including a bail bond, sureties, personal appearance, and verification of antecedents. The order emphasized that the bail conditions are not to delay the trial and that any observations made are not binding during the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the vehicle owner under Section 438 CrPC when the prosecution has not made a specific allegation of his participation in the illegal liquor offence.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 32(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- illegal liquor
- vehicle ownership
- Section 438 CrPC
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33432 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1072 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Gaya
======================================================
Rishu kumar, S/o Krishna Deo Dangi, R/o Village - Peksa, P.S. - Gidhour,
District - Chatra, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 18-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Gaya Excise P.S. Case No. 1072 of 2025 registered for the
offences under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act, 2016.
3. The prosecution case is to the effect that during
checking of vehicles, one Swift Dzire car was intercepted and
the driver, on seeing the police, started driving rashly, however,
he was apprehended and who disclosed his name as Priyanshu
Kumar. On search of the vehicle, a total of 114 liters of illegal
beer and foreign liquor were recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated on account of the
disclosure made by the apprehended accused Priyanshu Kumar,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33432 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
2/3
who happens to be the cousin of the petitioner and he had taken
the vehicle of the petitioner to go to Ranchi and therefore, the
petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the alleged liquor. It
has next been submitted that the petitioner has been made an
accused merely because he happens to be the owner of the car
and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner
regarding his involvement in carrying the said illicit liquor. It
has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has clean
antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the
petitioner above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the
event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Gaya Excise P.S. Case No. 1072 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33432 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
3/3
B.N.S.S. as well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his close
relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in
Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court
concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature
of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty
to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is
found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-
mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or
in the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/ayushkr-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.