Patna High Court
Pintu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to bond, sureties and verification of antecedents.
Summary
Pintu Kumar applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with alleged offences under Section 30(a)(d) of the Excise Act involving recovery of liquor and raw material from the Punpun river. The petitioner argued that he was not arrested, no contraband was found in his possession, and the informant’s identity was omitted from the FIR, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedents. It further held that if more than one prior case is found, the bail may be revoked; otherwise, the provisional order will be confirmed. The application for anticipatory bail was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the petitioner has not been arrested and no material is recovered from his possession.
- Whether the omission of the informant’s name in the FIR affects the validity of the prosecution’s case for denying bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent warrants denial of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 30(d)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Excise Act
- bail bond
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42890 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2026 Thana- FATUA District- Patna
======================================================
Pintu Kumar S/o Birodhi Yadav @ Birodhi Singh Resident of - Abdalpur,
P.S.- Fatuha, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ram Jiban Pd Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sucheta Yadav
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-07-2026 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(a)(d)of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act
and allegation is of recovery of 25 litres of liquor and 300 litres
of raw material which was destroyed on the bank of Punpun
river.
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 place, which does not belong to the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42890 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
2/3
and is accessible to public at large and he came to be implicated
at the instance of local person, but the name of the person, who
disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the F.I.R.,
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when
petitioner has not been implicated based on secret information.
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.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) 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 Fatuha P. S. Case No.70 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 more than one case, then
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42890 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
3/3
it 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 has antecedent of one case only, 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.