Patna High Court
Pintu RajakversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was provisionally granted, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents, as the allegations did not demonstrate a clear case of culpable possession.
Summary
The petitioner, Pintu Rajak, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 for allegedly possessing six litres of liquor recovered from his motorcycle. He argued that he had no prior criminal record, the liquor was not found in his immediate possession, and he was unaware that a friend misused his vehicle. The State opposed the bail, contending that the seizure linked the petitioner to the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.500 with two sureties, conditioned on verification of the petitioner’s antecedents by the trial court. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed immediately.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the present facts?
- Whether the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence suffices to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 32(3)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- possession
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
- Section 438 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36968 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1210 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Pintu Rajak S/o Lakshmi Baitha Resident of Village- Lautan, P.S.- Minapur,
District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, A.P.P.
======================================================
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 offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and
32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 6 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. 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 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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36968 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
2/3
would get implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was
completely unaware that his friend would misuse the vehicle in
the manner as alleged who also fled from the spot.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let 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 Excise P.S. Case
No. 1210 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36968 of 2026(2) dt.16-06-2026
3/3
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent 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.