Patna High Court
Navdeep Mandal @ Navdeep KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court provisionally granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bail bond conditions and verification of his criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Navdeep Mandal, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act concerning the alleged recovery of 64.625 litres of liquor from an auto and a motorcycle. He argued that he was not caught in possession, did not own the vehicles, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by Kanhaiya while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, requiring a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents within six weeks. If more than one prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if only one prior case is found, the provisional bail will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case under the Bihar Excise Act
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused made in police custody can form the basis for arrest
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- confessional statement
- bail bond
- inherent powers of court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44110 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-462 Year-2018 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Navdeep Mandal @ Navdeep Kumar Son of Late Jay Prakash Mandal
Resident of Village- Hussainabad Thakur Bari, P.S.- Habibpur, District-
Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rishup, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 07-07-2026 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 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 64.625 liters of liquor from an Auto
and a motorcycle.
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
any of the seized vehicles and came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Kanhaiya in police custody which does
not have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44110 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
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. 5000/- (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 Jagdishpur P.S. Case
No. 462 of 2018 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 more than 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 has
antecedent of one case only, 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.