Patna High Court
Sonu KumarversusThe state of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of the petitioners' criminal antecedents.
Summary
Petitioners Sonu Kumar and Hira Kumar, owners of two vehicles, were implicated in a case alleging recovery of 78 litres of liquor from those vehicles under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. They argued that they were not arrested on the spot, had no liquor in their conscious possession, and were unaware that a friend had misused their vehicles. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail, contending that mere ownership of the vehicle should not constitute sufficient grounds for arrest. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioners' criminal antecedents, and stipulated that the bail would be confirmed only if they have no more than one prior case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether ownership of a vehicle from which liquor was recovered, without actual possession, suffices to justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioners' prior criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- vehicle ownership
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- Section 438 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36964 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2026 Thana- HATHIDAH District- Patna
======================================================
1. Sonu Kumar S/O Rom Sogarath Singh @ Ram Sogarath Singh R/O Village-
Naya Gaon, Chitrapur (Chhitraur), P.S- Begusarai (Matihani), Distt.-
Begusarai.
2. Hira Kumar S/O Divakar Ray R/O Village- Chatra, Mansi, P.S.- Mansi,
Dist.- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The state of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Sucheta Yadav, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 78 litres of liquor from two vehicles.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession. It is further
submitted that petitioners came to be implicated based on the
fact that they are owner of the seized vehicle. It is next
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36964 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
2/3
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. It is also
submitted that petitioners were completely unaware that their
friend would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged who
also fled from the spot. It is submitted that once an accused is
implicated in a case relating to excise the police start
implicating mechanically without holding a proper investigation
of the case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, let the
petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released
on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each 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 Hathidah P.S. Case No. 19 of 2026, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36964 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
3/3
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners
and if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of more than
one case, it would be presumed that petitioners had concealed
their 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
petitioners have antecedent of only one case in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.