Patna High Court
Ankit BaithaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was provisionally granted, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents and compliance with bail conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Ankit Baitha, sought anticipatory bail after a motorcycle registered in his name was seized with 92 litres of liquor, alleged to be a violation of Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He argued that he had no knowledge of the liquor being in the vehicle and that the actual offenders, Ankit and Sonu, were apprehended at the scene, while he had a clean criminal record. The State opposed the bail, contending that ownership of the vehicle implicated the petitioner. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.500 bond with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. If a prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if his record remains clean, the bail will be confirmed. The order directs the trial court to conduct this verification.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the seizure of liquor from a vehicle owned by him.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle alone suffices to establish culpability under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail conditions
- vehicle ownership
- liquor seizure
- clean antecedent
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36879 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2026 Thana- RAGHUNATHPUR District- Siwan
======================================================
Ankit Baitha Son of Yogendra Baitha Resident of Village- Tari, P.S.-
Raghunathpur, District- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwary
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akbar Ali
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-06-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 92 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. 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.36879 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
2/3
implicated. It is also submitted that the petitioner was
completely unaware that Ankit and Sonu would misuse his
vehicle in the manner as alleged who were 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 Raghunathpur P.S. Case No.03 of 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36879 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
3/3
on verification it is found that petitioner is a person with clean
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.