Patna High Court
Dharmendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bail bonds, sureties, and verification of the petitioners’ criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Dharmendra Kumar and Md. Sultan Ahmad, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 concerning the alleged recovery of 354 litres of liquor from a pick‑up vehicle. They argued that they were not the owners of the vehicle, had no conscious possession of the liquor, and that the complaint was instigated by a hostile watchman who failed to inform police earlier. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and subject to verification of the petitioners’ criminal antecedents. It further stipulated that if petitioner 1 is found to have any prior case or petitioner 2 more than one prior case, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
- Whether the petitioners’ alleged lack of ownership and possession of the seized vehicle negates the likelihood of them absconding or tampering with evidence
- Whether the petitioners’ criminal antecedents warrant denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38035 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2026 Thana- HASPURA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Dharmendra Kumar S/o Devendra Singh RO Village- Uchit Bigha, PS-
Haspura, District- Aurangabad, Bihar
2. Md. Sultan Ahmad @ Sultan Ahmad S/o Suleman Chaudhari R/o vill and
P.O. and P.S.- Bikramganj, Distt.- Rohtas, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 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
petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and petitioner
no. 2 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 354 litres of liquor from a pick-up
vehilce.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38035 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
submitted that petitioners are not the owner of the seized vehicle
and came to be implicated at the instance of the Chawkidar with
whom they are on an inimical term. It is next submitted that if
the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioners
in the occurrence then why he did not inform the police prior to
the institution of the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the
case of the prosecution.
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 Haspura P.S. Case No. 139 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.
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38035 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
and if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of even one
case and petitioner no. 2 has 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
petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and petitioner
no. 2 has 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.