Patna High Court
Kamta KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court granted pre‑arrest bail to the petitioner subject to bond and verification conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Kamta Kumar, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case (Sonepur P.S. Case No. 528 of 2025) alleging violation of Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for possession of 2.5 litres of country‑made liquor and 16.5 litres of English wine recovered from an open area behind a Panchayat Bhawan. He claimed he was falsely implicated due to personal enmity and had no involvement in the seized liquor. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after considering the open nature of the recovery site and the petitioner's claim of false implication, granted pre‑arrest bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and a condition that the District Court verify his criminal antecedents. The bail order will lapse if the verification reveals involvement in other cases, and the bail application was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the circumstances of recovery from an open place and alleged false implication justify the grant of bail.
- Whether the bail can be conditioned on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2), 482(2)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 CrPC
- false implication
- liquor seizure
- open place
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43821 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-528 Year-2025 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Kamta Kumar S/o Uma Ray R/o Pahleja Shahpur Diyara, P.S.- Sonepur,
District- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nityanand Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Braj Kishore Pd., APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 08-07-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 528 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act.
3. Allegation is of recovery of 2.5 litres of country
made liquor and 16.5 litres of English wine from backside of the
Panchayat Bhawan, Pahleja Shahpur Diyara.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the case due to enmity on the disclosure made by
local chaukidar. He has no concern either with the seized liquor
or trade of liquor in any manner. The place of recovery is an
open place which is accessible to anyone.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43821 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
2/2
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties and the nature of allegation against the
petitioner and the fact that the alleged recovery is from an open
place which is accessible to anyone, the petitioner, above
named, is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event
of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period
of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned District Court where the case
is pending in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 528 of
2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2)
of the Cr.P.C / Section 482 (2) BNSS.
7. The District Court is directed to verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner
is involved in some other cases as what has been stated in Para-
3 of the bail petition, this order will automatically lose its force.
8. The bail application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.