Patna High Court
Amit RanjanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail, conditioning its confirmation on verification of the petitioner’s clean antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Amit Ranjan, sought anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act alleging that 4.410 litres of liquor were recovered from his pickup vehicle. He argued that he had a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of seizure, and was unaware that his driver misused the vehicle. The State opposed the bail, contending that the vehicle was used for the offence. The court, after considering the submissions, ordered provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing bail bonds and two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. It further directed that if any antecedent is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, the bail would be confirmed forthwith. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable... (B.N.S.S.) provisions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is appropriate when the accused is alleged owner of a vehicle used in the commission of an offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.
- Whether the trial court must verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents before confirming the provisional anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable (B.N.S.S.) — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30
- vehicle seizure
- clean antecedent
- Section 482
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33604 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2026 Thana- GADHA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Amit Ranjan S/o Jibachh Mahto R/o Village - Bhanaspatti Rampur, PS -
Saidpur Runi, District - Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil 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.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 4.410 litres of liquor from a pick up vehicle. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33604 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
2/3
implicated. It is also submitted that the petitioner was
completely unaware that Rohit would misuse his vehicle in the
manner as alleged who was also apprehended from the spot
along with Manjit.
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 Gadha P.S. Case No.36/2026, 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.33604 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.