Patna High Court
SANTOSH RAM SAH @ SANTOSH RAMversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedent.
Summary
Santosh Ram Sah, the owner of a Toto vehicle, was implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 0.065 litres of liquor from his vehicle. He argued that he had a clean antecedent, was not arrested at the spot, and that the liquor was not found in his conscious possession; the alleged misuse was by his son. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, contending that ownership of the vehicle alone should not create criminal liability. The State opposed the bail, asserting that the offence was cognizable and the petitioner was involved. The High Court, applying its inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 500 and two sureties, and ordered verification of the petitioner’s antecedent. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would be cancelled, otherwise it would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case under the Bihar Excise Act
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence creates sufficient grounds for arrest and denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a), 32(3)
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 482
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
- liquor seizure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39795 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-757 Year-2023 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Kishanganj
======================================================
SANTOSH RAM SAH @ SANTOSH RAM Son of Ganesh Ram Resident of
Village- Chilhamari, P.S.- Pothia, District- Kishanganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mritunjay Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Asha Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State, Ms Asha Kumari.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and
32(3) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 0.065 litres of liquor from a Toto vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
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
vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use
his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39795 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
2/3
create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,
it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware
that his son (Suresh) would misuse the vehicle in the manner as
alleged, who was also apprehended from the spot along with
Rijaul and Mitaul.
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 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 Kishanganj Excise P.S. Case No. 757 of 2023
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of
the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case
then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this
Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39795 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
3/3
confirmed, but after verification if 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)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.