Patna High Court
Rahul SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that provisional anticipatory bail should be granted subject to bond conditions and verification of the petitioner’s antecedents.
Summary
Rahul Singh applied for anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for allegedly recovering 153.3 litres of liquor from a car. He argued that he was not arrested, did not have the liquor in his possession, was not the car's owner, and that the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by Shivji while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The Patna High Court, applying Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish bail bonds of Rs.5,000 each with two sureties and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedents. If any antecedent is found, the bail may be withdrawn; otherwise, the provisional order will be confirmed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the alleged offence is based solely on a confessional statement made in police custody.
- Whether the petitioner satisfies the criteria under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail despite the seriousness of the Excise Act offence.
- Whether the conditions imposed, including verification of criminal antecedents, are appropriate for granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30 Excise Act
- confessional statement
- bail bond
- criminal antecedent
- Section 438 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37886 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2026 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria
======================================================
Rahul Singh S/o Rajesh Singh R/o Village - Mokarampur, Ward No.- 01, P.S.-
Sakari, Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Kanhiya Kishore (App.100)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 153.3 litres of liquor from a car.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of
the seized car and he came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Shivji in police custody which does
not have any evidentiary value.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37886 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Thousand) 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 Araria P. S. Case No.65 of 2026, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is
found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, then it
would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining
anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before this Court,
in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall
not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37886 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.