Patna High Court
Sheodayal RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to verification of the petitioners' criminal antecedents and compliance with the conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners, Sheodayal Ram and Ram Ayodhya Ram, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 53 litres of liquor. They argued that they were not arrested at the scene, no liquor was found in their possession, and the FIR did not disclose the informant, casting doubt on the prosecution's case. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioners be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000 each with two sureties, subject to verification of their criminal antecedents. The order stipulated that if verification reveals concealed antecedents, the provisional bail would not be confirmed. The application was allowed, granting provisional anticipatory bail subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the absence of arrest and lack of possession of the alleged liquor affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether concealment of prior criminal antecedents by the petitioners warrants denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40597 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2026 Thana- ISUAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Sheodayal Ram Son of Surendra Ram Resident of village- Murwa Khas, Ps-
Isuapur, Dist- Saran
2. Ram Ayodhya Ram Son of Late Ramekbal Ram @ Ram Ekbal Ram
Resident of village- Murwa Khas, Ps- Isuapur, Dist- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr/s.Chetna
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioner no.1 is a person with clean antecedent and
petitioner no.2 has antecedent of one case, but inadvertently at
Para-3, the same could not be recorded though the order
impugned records about the criminal antecedent of petitioner
no.2, as such inadvertently the said fact could not be pleaded at
Para-3 of the anticipatory bail application. It is next submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40597 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026
2/3
that allegation is of recovery of 53 litres of liquor from the field
of Badri Ram.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and even alleged
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the
petitioners and they came to be implicated at the instance of
local person, but the name of the person, who disclosed the
name of the petitioners is not disclosed in the F.I.R., which casts
an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioners
have not been implicated based on secret information. It is
further submitted that if local person was aware of the
involvement of the petitioners in the occurrence, then why he
did not inform the police prior to institution of the present F.I.R.,
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40597 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026
3/3
the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each 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 Isuapur P. S. Case No.02 of 2026, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioners shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event,
if it is found that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of even one case
and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of more than one case, then it
would be presumed that petitioners for the purposes of obtaining
anticipatory bail had concealed their antecedent before this
Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail
order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found
that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of even one case and
petitioner no.2 has antecedent of more than one case, in that
event, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.