Patna High Court
Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted provisionally, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, in the absence of possession of the contraband.
Summary
The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar, feared arrest in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged recovery of 35 litres of liquor from a mango orchard owned by Heeralal. He contended that he was not present at the spot, had no possession of the liquor, and was implicated due to an inimical relationship with the chowkidar. The State opposed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court examined the submissions and noted the lack of direct possession and the petitioner’s claim of no connection to the premises. It granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a Rs.5,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents under Section 482(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail will be confirmed only if the verification shows the petitioner has at most one prior case; otherwise, it will be set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act given the alleged facts.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- criminal antecedents
- Section 482
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44654 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2026 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran
======================================================
Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Prasad S/o Shambhu Kushwaha @ Shkambhu
Prasad Resident of Village- Pandey Tola, P.S.- Nautan, District- West
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Niraj Kumar Sharma
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-07-2026 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 Section 30(a) of Bihar
Prohibition and 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 35 litres of liquor from Mango orchard
of Heeralal. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested
from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious
possession and even alleged recovery is from a place which does
not belong to the petitioner and petitioner has no concern or
relation with Heeralal and he came to be implicated at the instance
of chowkidar with whom he is on an inimical term.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44654 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
2/2
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.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 Nautan P.S.
Case No.53/2026, 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 more than 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 has antecedent of one case, 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.