Patna High Court
Nitish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail for the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and verification of antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitish Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case alleging recovery of 38.160 litres of liquor from a pit behind his house, an offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not arrested on the spot, and the liquor was not in his conscious possession nor on his property. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after hearing both sides, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.500 and two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent by the trial court. If any antecedent is found, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of possession justify granting anticipatory bail.
- Whether the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. are applicable.
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
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38070 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-175 Year-2026 Thana- PARSA District- Saran
======================================================
Nitish Kumar son of Mauji Lal Rai @ Mauji Ray Resident of Village- Mujona
(Mujauna), PS - Parsa, Dist- Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dewendra Narayan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
======================================================
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 the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 38.160 litres of liquor from a pit behind the house of
the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
but then is adjacent to his house and he came to be implicated
based on the secret information which is the easiest way to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38070 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
implicate someone without holding a proper investigation of the
case.
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 Parsa P.S. Case No.
175 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 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
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38070 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
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.