Patna High Court
Dinesh Mukhiya @ Dinesh Kumar Mukhiya @ Dinesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Dinesh Mukhiya, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 274, 275 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, relating to the alleged recovery of 99 litres of liquor, cash, a knife and a chain from a vehicle. The petitioner argued that he was not arrested on the spot, had no conscious possession of the seized items, was not the vehicle's owner, and that the prosecution’s case relied on a confessional statement of another accused, which he claimed lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioner’s four prior excise cases, the recovery of a dangerous weapon, and the risk of absconding. The court considered these submissions and found the risk of flight and the seriousness of the alleged offences sufficient to deny anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the case.
- Whether a confessional statement of a co-accused can be relied upon to justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal record and the presence of a dangerous weapon warrant refusal of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 274, 275, 3(5)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- liquor seizure
- confessional statement
- dangerous weapon
- prior criminal record
- court refusal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42796 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2025 Thana- MADHWAPUR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Dinesh Mukhiya @ Dinesh Kumar Mukhiya @ Dinesh Kumar S/O Kari
Mukhiya R/O Vill.- Basuki, Bihari, P.S- Madhwapur, District – Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-07-2026 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 Sections 274, 275 and 3(5) of the
BNS as well as Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
(Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of four cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 99 litres of liquor from a Scorpio Vehicle
along with Rs.12,700/- and an iron knife and an iron chain. It is
further alleged that Rs.12,700/- was recovered from possession of
Vikash Kumar and the knife and iron chain were recovered from
possession of Md. Dilshad.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42796 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
2/2
petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to be
implicated based on the confessional statement of apprehended
accused in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value
in the eye of law.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that apart from
recovery of liquor, it is alleged that knife and iron chain were also
recovered from possession of Md. Dilshad who disclosed the name
of the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner has antecedent
of four cases and it might be a possibility that if the privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may
abscond. It is next submitted that knife is a dangerous weapon.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege
of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Madhwapur
P.S. Case No. 119 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Exclusive
Special Judge, Excise Court, Madhubani/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.