Patna High Court
Ranjeet GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
Pre‑arrest bail was not granted; the district court must first obtain a transport officer’s report and verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents before deciding on bail.
Summary
Petitioner Ranjeet Gupta, owner of a motorcycle, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly transporting 42 litres of illicit liquor. He applied for pre‑arrest bail, claiming he was not present at the time of seizure and that the sole basis of the accusation is a confessional statement of a co‑accused, which he contends lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The High Court noted that the motorcycle is registered in the petitioner’s name and directed the District Court to obtain a report from the District Transport Officer to verify the vehicle’s prior involvement in similar offences and to check the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The Court ordered that if the vehicle is found not previously involved and the petitioner has no adverse antecedents, bail may be granted on suitable conditions. In the meantime, the bail application was disposed without granting bail, pending the required investigations.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether a co‑accused’s confessional statement alone suffices to justify arrest and denial of bail.
- Whether the ownership and prior use of the motorcycle affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- illicit liquor
- motor vehicle ownership
- confessional statement
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37342 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-221 Year-2025 Thana- TARARI District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Ranjeet Gupta S/o Sudarshan Gupta Resident of Village- Deo, P.S.- Sikarhata,
District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Uday Pratap Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Lakshmi Kant Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 01-07-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Tarari P.S. Case No. 221/2025 registered for the offence(s)
punishable under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, allegedly 42
litres of illicit liquor was recovered from a motorcycle bearing
Registration No.BR03 4264.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely
been implicated in the present case. Admittedly, at the time of
the alleged seizure and recovery of illicit liquor, petitioner was
not present and he has been made accused in this case, being the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37342 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
2/3
owner of the motorcycle in question. On these grounds,
petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the allegations made in
the FIR and the seizure list, I find that the motorcycle in
question stands registered in the name of the petitioner. It has
further been submitted that the petitioner was not present at the
time of the alleged seizure and that his implication in the present
case is based solely on the basis of confessional statement of the
co-accused recorded before the police, which has no evidentiary
value. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned
District Court is directed to call for a report from the District
Transport Officer concerned with regard to the motorcycle in
question so as to ascertain whether, prior to institution of the
present FIR, the said motorcycle had been involved in any
similar activity. The District Transport Officer must also verify
the records of the motorcycle as mentioned in the FIR on the
basis of its registration number, engine number and chassis
number. The District Transport Officer must send the report to
the learned District Court within two days from communication
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37342 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
3/3
of this order. In the event, it is found that the motorcycle in
question had not previously been involved in any such
activity and belongs to the petitioner, then in that case, the
learned District Court shall release the petitioner on pre-
arrest bail on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit
and proper.
7. The learned District Court is directed to verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the
petitioner is involved in some other cases, as what has been
stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail application, this order will
automatically lose its force.
8. The bail application, accordingly, stands disposed
of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.