Patna High Court
Mukesh RayversusThe 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 petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Summary
Mukesh Ray, the owner of a tractor and an Ertiga car, was implicated in the recovery of 991.7 litres of liquor alleged to be in violation of Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. He claimed he had a clean antecedent, was not present at the spot of seizure, and that his driver had misused the vehicles without his knowledge. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The High Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties of the same amount, and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedents. If any antecedent is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if he is found to have a clean record, the bail will be confirmed forthwith. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle from which liquor was recovered implicates the owner in the offence.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of a clean antecedent and lack of knowledge of the driver’s actions warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- prohibition law
- liquor seizure
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38876 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2026 Thana- MANER District- Patna
======================================================
Mukesh Ray S/O Mansha Ray R/O Vill.- Brahmchari Pokhaar,P.S-
Maner,Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The state of bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Saumya
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-06-2026 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 (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 991.7 litres of liquor from a tractor and an Ertiga
car. 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 the seized tractor. 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.38876 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
2/3
hence would get implicated. It is also submitted that the
petitioner was completely unaware that his driver would misuse
his vehicle in the manner as alleged who also fled from the spot.
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 Maner P.S. Case No.133/2026, 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38876 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
3/3
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.