Patna High Court
Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Yadav @ Nitesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent and compliance with Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitish Kumar, feared arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 41(i) of the Bihar Excise Act alleging the recovery of 810 litres of liquor from a Scorpio vehicle. He contended that he was not arrested on the spot, no liquor was found in his possession, he is not the owner of the vehicle, and the case is based solely on a confessional statement made by another accused in police custody, which he argued lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The Court considered these submissions and granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and compliance with conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order further directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and to confirm or set aside the provisional bail based on that verification.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the allegations under the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the confessional statement of an accused in police custody can form the basis for denying anticipatory bail.
- What conditions, if any, should be imposed on the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a), 41(i)
- Bihar Negotiable Sale and Settlement Act (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- confessional statement
- provisional bail
- criminal antecedent
- section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44542 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2026 Thana- NAUTAN District- Siwan
======================================================
Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Yadav @ Nitesh Kumar S/o Ramapati Yadav Resident
of Village- Sikuara, P.S.- Nautan, Distt.- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Pandey
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-07-2026 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 30(a) and 41(i) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 810 litres of liquor from a Scorpio
vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of the
seized vehicle and he came to be implicated based on confessional
statement of apprehended-accused in police custody which does not
have any evidentiary value.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44542 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
2/2
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
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. 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 Nutan P.S. Case No. 151 of 2026, 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 in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.