Patna High Court
Md. Naeem @ Naeem MansuriversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Naeem Mansuri, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 274 and 275 of the Bihar Narcotic and S... Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly recovering 15 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He contended that he was not arrested on the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, and was not the owner of the vehicle, arguing that the information against him came from a local person and a chawkidar without proper investigation. The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent within six weeks. If more than one antecedent case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in view of the alleged offences under Sections 274, 275 of the Bihar Narcotic and S... Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of conscious possession and ownership of the seized vehicle negates the basis for arrest.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, if more than one case, should preclude confirmation of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- excise law
- liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.460 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-194 Year-2025 Thana- MADHEPUR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Md. Naeem @ Naeem Mansuri S/o- Md. Mokhtar @ Mukhtar Mansuri @
Mukhatar Miya@ Md. Mukhtar Resident of Village- Bochahi, Police Station-
Madhepur, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Soban Asghar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 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 274 and
275 of the BNS as well as Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of
recovery of 15 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted
that petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to
the implicated at the instance of the local person and Chawkidar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.460 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
but then it is submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the
involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did
not inform the police prior to the institution of the instant FIR
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution and the
name of the person who disclosed the name of the petitioner is
not disclosed in the FIR which further casts an aspersion on the
case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that once an accused
is implicated in a case relating to excise the police start
implicating mechanically either at the instance of the
Chawkidar, local person, secret information or confessional
statement without holding a proper investigation of the case.
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, let 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
Madhepur P.S. Case No. 194 of 2025, subject to the conditions
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.460 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./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 if
it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case,
it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner has antecedent of only one case in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…