Patna High Court
Raj Kamal KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that ownership of the vehicle alone, without possession of the liquor and with a clean antecedent, does not preclude the grant of anticipatory bail, and therefore provisional anticipatory bail was ordered.
Summary
The petitioner, Raj Kamal Kumar, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 555.660 litres of liquor from two pickup vehicles, one of which he owned. He argued that he had no possession of the liquor, was not arrested at the spot, and was unaware that his vehicle was misused by another individual. The State opposed his prayer for anticipatory bail. The High Court, considering his clean antecedent and lack of direct involvement, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a modest bond and two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal record by the trial court. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite being the owner of a vehicle used in the alleged liquor seizure
- Whether the absence of possession of the contraband and a clean antecedent justify granting anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- liquor seizure
- excise law
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
- Section 30
- Section 482
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37966 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2026 Thana- EXCISE HILSA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Raj Kamal Kumar Son of Chhathu Paswan Resident of Village - Kachra,
Police Station - Wena, District - Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 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 555.660 litres of liquor from two different pick up
vehicles. 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 one 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37966 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
hence would get implicated and at the same time shall bring
disrepute to his business. It is also submitted that the petitioner
was completely unaware that Sujeet would misuse his vehicle in
the manner as alleged who was also apprehended from the spot
along with Ram Iqbal.
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 Hilsa Excise P.S. Case No.21/2026, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37966 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
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 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.