Patna High Court
Jay Prakash SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedents under Section 482(2).
Summary
The petitioner, Jay Prakash Singh, was implicated in a case alleging the recovery of 270 litres of liquor from a vehicle he owned, which he had leased to M/s Rudra Self Drive. He argued that he had no knowledge of the alleged misuse and that the liquor was not found in his conscious possession. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The High Court, considering his clean antecedent and the fact that he was not in possession of the liquor, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and verification of his criminal record under Section 482(2). The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the alleged offence under Sections 318(4), 61(2)(b) of the B.N.S. and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of conscious possession and the rental agreement negate the necessity for pre‑arrest detention.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S. — s. 318(4), 61(2)(b)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- liquor seizure
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
- Section 482
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43339 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2026 Thana- PARSATHUA District- Rohtas
======================================================
Jay Prakash Singh Son of Baijnath Resident of Village- Kerakatpur, P.S.-
Varanasi, District- Baneras, Uttar Praesh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashish
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar
======================================================
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 offence punishable under Sections 318(4),
61(2((b) of BNS and Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise
(Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 270 litres of liquor from a car. It is next submitted that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be
implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized vehicle.
It is next submitted that petitioner had entered into an agreement
with a company namely M/s Rudra Self Drive and had given the
car for plying on rent, as such he was not aware that the car would
be misused in the manner as alleged.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43339 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
2/2
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event
of his arrest or surrender 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 Parsathua
P.S. Case No.27/2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case,
in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed
his antecedent before this court, as such, the 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)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.