Patna High Court
Nepali Kumar @ Subham KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court may grant provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and compliance with bail conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Nepali Kumar, feared arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of 80 litres of liquor from a motorcycle, asserting he was not the owner and was implicated by a hostile watchman. He sought anticipatory bail, arguing lack of possession and that the watchman’s motive was personal enmity. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a Rs.20,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents within six weeks. The order stipulated that if more than four prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed; if exactly four, the provisional bail would be confirmed. The court directed the trial court to verify the antecedent and act accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- Section 30
- Section 482
- criminal antecedent
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39970 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-424 Year-2026 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Nepali Kumar @ Subham Kumar S/o- Umesh Ray @ Umesh Kumar Ray @
Umesh Kumar Yadav R/v- Pahleja Shahpur Diara Ps- Sonepur Dist- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raushan Raj
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary
======================================================
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.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of four cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 80 liters of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing
was recovered from his conscious possession and is not the
owner of the seized vehicle and he came to be implicated at the
instance of Chowkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It
is also submitted that if Chowkidar was aware of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39970 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
2/3
involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did
not inform the police prior to 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 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 before the learned Trial Court
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
20000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) 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 Sonepur
P.S. Case No. 424 of 2026 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 more
than four cases 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 confirmed, but after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39970 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
3/3
verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of four
cases only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.