Patna High Court
Dhharamnath Rai @ Dharmnath Rai @ Dharm Nath YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions and verification of his antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Dharmnath Rai, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act concerning the alleged recovery of 432 litres of liquor from a Scorpio vehicle. He argued he had a clean antecedent, was not the owner of the vehicle, and the seizure was based solely on a confessional statement made by a co‑accused, Umesh, while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner surrenders within six weeks, furnishes bail bonds and sureties, and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedent. If any prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed forthwith. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether a confessional statement made by a co‑accused in police custody can form the basis for arrest.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of ownership or possession of the seized vehicle justifies granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- confessional statement
- police custody
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482(2) CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41526 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-465 Year-2025 Thana- KOTWA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Dhharamnath Rai @ Dharmnath Rai @ Dharm Nath Yadav S/O Jagdish rai
Resident Of Village - Kadhan Bairiya P.s.- Kesariya, Dist.- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramesh Chandra
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-06-2026 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 is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 432 liters of liquor from a Scorpio vehicle.
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 came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Umesh in police custody which does not
have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41526 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
2/2
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. 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 Kotwa P.S. Case No.
465 of 2025 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
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)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.