Patna High Court
Prince KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail was granted subject to bail bonds, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.
Summary
Prince Kumar applied for anticipatory bail after a FIR was lodged under Sections 30(c) and 30(d) of the Excise Act alleging recovery of 50 kg of jawa mahua from a distillery, which was destroyed. The petitioner claimed he had a clean antecedent, that the alleged contraband was not in his possession, and that the complaint was motivated by an inimical watchman. The State opposed the bail. The Court, applying Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., granted provisional anticipatory bail on condition that the petitioner furnishes bail bonds of Rs.500 with two sureties and appears before the trial court within six weeks. The order also directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, with confirmation of bail if he is found clean, otherwise the bail would not be confirmed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Sections 30(c) and 30(d) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged clean antecedent and lack of possession of the seized goods justify anticipatory bail.
- Whether the circumstances of the FIR, including the role of the watchman, affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(c), 30(d)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Section 30
- criminal antecedent
- provisional bail
- Section 438
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40601 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2026 Thana- BELAGANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
Prince Kumar S/o Yogindra Yadav Resident of village - Birbal Bigha, P.S.-
Belaganj, District - Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar Yadav
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(c) and 30(d) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 50 kg. of jawa mahua from a distillery at village
Birbal Bigha which was destroyed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even alleged
recovery is from a distillery, which does not belong to the
petitioner and he came to be implicated at the instance of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40601 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026
2/3
Chaukidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is further
submitted that if Chaukidar 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 petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum 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
Belaganj P. S. Case No.05 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 petitioner 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40601 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026
3/3
would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining
anticipatory bail had concealed his 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 is a person with clean antecedent, 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.