Patna High Court
Raj Kishore Ray @ Raj kishoreversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to bond, sureties, and verification of his antecedent.
Summary
Petitioner Raj Kishore Ray sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of two litres of liquor from a Santro car. He asserted a clean criminal record, non‑ownership of the vehicle, and that the only link to him was a confessional statement made by Sonu Kumar while in police custody, which he argued lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent. If any prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed immediately. 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 can be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in the circumstances of the case.
- Whether the confessional statement made by Sonu Kumar in police custody is admissible as evidence against the petitioner.
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
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39308 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-450 Year-2022 Thana- BEUR District- Patna
======================================================
Raj Kishore Ray @ Raj Kishore S/O Late Ram Ekbal Ray R/O Village-
Bisumpur, P.S.- Beur, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Yadav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar, AP.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-06-2026 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 2 litres of liquor from a Santro Car.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted that
petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to be
implicated based on the confessional statement of Sonu Kumar in
police custody which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye
of law. It is next submitted that the police mechanically investigate
and implicate.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39308 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
2/2
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 Beur P.S. Case No. 450 of 2022, 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 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.