Patna High Court
Mukesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions and verification of his antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act concerning the alleged recovery of 15 litres of liquor from a public mango orchard. He argued he has a clean antecedent and that the alleged contraband was not found in his possession nor on his private property, and that the investigation was based solely on secret information. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs. 500 bail bond with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent by the trial court. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed, but if the petitioner is found to have a clean record, the provisional bail would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the alleged recovery of liquor from a public place and the petitioner’s clean antecedent justify granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Bihar Negotiable Substances (or similar) Statutes (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a) Bihar Excise Act
- Section 482(2) BNSS
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45392 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-330 Year-2026 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar S/o Chhotelal Sah R/o Village - Chaughada, Ward no. 08, P.S.
- Supaul, Dist. - Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kuldeep Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary
======================================================
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 Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 15 liters of liquor from a Mango orchard.
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 even alleged recovery is
from a place which does not belong to the petitioner and is accessible
to public at large and he came to be implicated based on secret
information which is the easiest way to implicate someone without
holding a proper investigation, when petitioner admittedly is a person
with clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45392 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
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. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred)
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 Supaul P.S. Case No. 330 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 even 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 is a person with
clean antecedent 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.