Patna High Court
Ram Pukar Sahni @ Pukar Mukhiya @ Pukar Kumar MukhyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent cases, under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Pukar Sahni, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 225 litres of liquor and seizure of a motorcycle. He argued that he was not arrested at the scene, had no possession of the seized items, and that the case was based on a confessional statement made by another accused, Nikhil, while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warranted detention. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditioned the confirmation of bail on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. It further directed that if more than two prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed, whereas confirmation would follow if only two antecedent cases are verified.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail in a case under the Excise Act?
- Does a confessional statement made by an accused in police custody have evidentiary value for granting bail?
- How do the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 41(1)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedents
- Section 482
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39982 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2026 Thana- PUPRI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Ram Pukar Sahni @ Pukar Mukhiya @ Pukar Kumar Mukhya S/o Pradeep
Sahni Resident of Village- Behra, Hathauri Chowk, P.S.- Nanpur, District -
Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Iftekhar Mahmood
======================================================
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 offence punishable under Sections 30(a), 41(1)
of Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases and allegation is of recovery
of 225 litres of liquor from sacks and a motorcycle was seized. It
is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as
such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and is
not the owner of the seized vehicle and even even alleged recovery
is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner and he
came to be implicated based on confessional statement of Nikhil in
police custody which does not have any evidentiary value.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39982 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
2/2
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.10,000/- (Rupees ten 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 Pupri
P.S. Case No.80/2026, 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 more than two
cases, 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 has antecedent of two cases, in that event
the provisional anticipatory bail order 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.