Patna High Court
Nitesh Manjhi @ Nitesh Kumar @ Nitish Manjhi @ Nitish KumarversusThe 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 petitioner’s antecedent, as the allegations were based solely on a custodial confession and the petitioner had a clean record.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitesh Manjhi, sought anticipatory bail after learning of a pending case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act concerning the alleged recovery of 500 litres of liquor from an auto. He argued that he had a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor, and was implicated solely on a confessional statement made by Munna while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warranted arrest. The Court, after hearing both sides, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs. 500 and two sureties of the same amount, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent by the trial court. The order further stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed, whereas a clean record would lead to immediate confirmation of the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused recorded in police custody can form the basis for denying anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- Section 30(a) Bihar Excise Act
- Section 482 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42741 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2026 Thana- PUNPUN District- Patna
======================================================
Nitesh Manjhi @ Nitesh Kumar @ Nitish Manjhi @ Nitish Kumar S/o Late
Ramchandra Manjhi Resident of Village- Aduli Chak, P.S.- Pun-Pun, Dist.-
Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Bihari Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammad Sufyan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 02-07-2026 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 500 liters of liquor from an Auto.
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 Auto and came to be implicated based on confessional
statement of Munna in police custody which does not have any
evidentiary value, when petitioner admittedly is a person with clean
antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42741 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
2/2
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. 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 Punpun P.S. Case No. 125 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 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.