Patna High Court
Rup Narayan Mukhiya @ Rup NarayanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to verification of their criminal antecedents and compliance with bail conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, five residents of Kuwarpur village, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of 56 litres of liquor from a bush near petitioner No.2's house. They contended that they were not arrested on the spot, no liquor was found in their possession, and the informant’s name was omitted from the FIR, indicating a weak investigation. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioners' multiple prior criminal cases, some under the Excise Act. Justice Satyavrat Verma granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties each, subject to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, and directed the trial court to verify the petitioners' criminal antecedents. The order stipulated that if any petitioner concealed a higher antecedent than disclosed, the provisional bail would not be confirmed for that individual; otherwise, the bail would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the absence of seizure from the petitioners' possession and the omission of the informant’s name in the FIR affect the bail decision.
- Whether the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents, especially under the Excise Act, justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the trial court should verify the criminal antecedents before confirming the provisional bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a), 41(1)
- Bihar Negotiable Sale Act — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482
- Bihar Excise Act
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44580 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2026 Thana- PIPRA District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Rup Narayan Mukhiya @ Rup Narayan Son of Dukhan Mukhiya Resident
of Village- Kuwarpur, Bintoli, P.S.- Pipra, District- East Champaran,
Motihari.
2. Dhuruv Mukhiya Son of Dukan Mukhiya Resident of Village- Kuwarpur,
Bintoli, P.S.- Pipra, District- East Champaran, Motihari.
3. Bhageshwar Mukhiya Son of Dukan Mukhiya Resident of Village-
Kuwarpur, Bintoli, P.S.- Pipra, District- East Champaran, Motihari.
4. Jay Charan Mukhiya Son of Gujur Mukhiya Resident of Village- Kuwarpur,
Bintoli, P.S.- Pipra, District- East Champaran, Motihari.
5. Budhan Mukhiya Son of Bindeshwar Mukhiya Resident of Village-
Kuwarpur, Bintoli, P.S.- Pipra, District- East Champaran, Motihari.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sumit Kumar Gupta
For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Shakir Ahmad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 41(1)
of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner nos. 1 and 5 have antecedent of three cases out of which
one case is under the Excise Act, petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of
five cases out of which three cases are under the Excise Act,
petitioner no. 3 has antecedent of four cases out of which two cases
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44580 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
2/3
are under the Excise Act and petitioner no. 4 has antecedent of four
case under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 56 litres of
liquor from bush behind the house of petitioner no. 2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioners but
then is adjacent to the house of petitioner no. 2 and he came to be
implicated at the instance of local people, but then the name of the
person, who disclosed the name of the petitioners, is not disclosed in
the FIR, which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is
further submitted that once an accused is implicated in a case relating
to excise, the police starts implicating mechanically either at the
instance of Chowkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret
information without holding a proper investigation.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event
of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today,
be released on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand) each 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44580 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
3/3
Pipra P.S. Case No. 176 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 petitioners and in the event
if it is found that petitioner nos. 1 and 5 have antecedent of more than
three cases, petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of more than five cases,
petitioner nos. 3 and 4 have antecedent of more than four cases then
it would be presumed that petitioners, for the purposes of seeking
anticipatory bail, had concealed their antecedent before this Court, as
such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed
with respect to that petitioner who had concealed his criminal
antecedent before this Court, but after verification if it is found that
petitioner nos. 1 and 5 have antecedent of three cases, petitioner no. 2
has antecedent of five cases, petitioner nos. 3 and 4 have antecedent
of four cases 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.