Patna High Court
Rohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Rohit Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case involving alleged illegal liquor possession under IPC sections 272 and 273 and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act sections 30(a), 41 and 47. He argued that the charge sheet contained a clerical error regarding his district and that he had a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the seized vehicle, and was implicated only through a confessional statement made by another person in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties, a condition that the trial court verify his antecedent, and a requirement to deposit Rs.1,500 with the Patna High Court Lawyers’ Association. The order also stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed. The decision was pronounced under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the alleged offences.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused made in police custody is admissible as evidence.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of possession and ownership of the seized vehicle precludes his liability.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 272, 273
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3557 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2022 Thana- DAGARUA District- Purnia
======================================================
Rohit Kumar S/o Trilok Prasad Singh @ Triloki Singh R/o Village -
Shahjadpur, Ward No. 4, Post - Shahjadpur, P.S - Udakishunganj, District -
Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-01-2026 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 Sections 272 and
273 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 30(a), 41 and
47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset,
submits that inadvertently while describing the petitioner, his
district has been recorded as Madhubani when it ought to have
been Madhepura. It is further submitted that even in the affidavit
portion, the district of the father of the petitioner has been
recorded as Madhubani instead of Madhepura, thus, seeks
permission to make necessary correction in the description of
the petitioner and his father.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3557 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
2/3
4. Permission is accorded.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 154.710 litres of liquor from a car.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted
that petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to
be implicated based on the confessional statement of Aditya
Anand in police custody which does not have any evidentiary
value in the eye of law.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, let 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.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 Dagarua
P.S. Case No. 183 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3557 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
3/3
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.
9. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial
court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if
it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, it
would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his antecedent
before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in
that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed but if it is found on verification that petitioner is a
person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
based on instruction submits that petitioner undertakes to
deposit an amount of Rs.1,500/- with the Lawyers’ Association
of the Patna High Court within a period of two weeks from
today.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…