Patna High Court
Tetar MukhiyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to provisional anticipatory bail pending verification of his antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Tetar Mukhiya, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018 for the alleged recovery of 90 litres of liquor from an auto he owned. He contended that he had no prior criminal record, was not in possession of the liquor, and was unaware that his vehicle was being misused by another individual, Sunil. The State opposed his application for anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 and two sureties, and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedents before confirming the bail. If any antecedent is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the alleged offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018.
- Whether mere ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence is sufficient ground for arrest and denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of conscious possession of the liquor justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail
- excise offence
- liquor seizure
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33578 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2025 Thana- Excise Benipatti District- Madhubani
======================================================
Tetar Mukhiya S/o Mohan Mukhiya R/o Village - Ladaut, PS - Benipatti,
District - Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Prakash
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 14-05-2026 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 Section 30(a) of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 90 litres of liquor from an auto. It is next submitted
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
vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use
his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would
create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33578 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
2/3
It is also submitted that the petitioner was completely unaware
that Sunil would misuse his vehicle in the manner as alleged
who was also apprehended from the spot.
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 Benipatti Excise P.S. Case No.177/2025,
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.33578 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
3/3
antecedent, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.