Patna High Court
Sandil Kumar @ Shandilya RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court provisionally granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions and verification of antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Sandil Kumar and Navin Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act concerning alleged recovery of 200 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. They argued that no liquor was found in their conscious possession, that the first petitioner had a clean record and the second had only three prior excise cases, and that the vehicle owner was unaware of any misuse. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, requiring the petitioners to surrender within six weeks, furnish bail bonds of Rs.15,000 with two sureties each, and submit to verification of their criminal antecedents. The order stipulated that if verification revealed a clean record for petitioner 1 and at most three cases for petitioner 2, the bail would be confirmed; otherwise, it would be withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act
- Whether the petitioners' criminal antecedents justify denial of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic and Substance (BNSS) Act — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- Section 30
- criminal antecedent
- Bihar Prohibition Act
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.555 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-716 Year-2025 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Sandil Kumar @ Shandilya Raj S/O Raj Kumar Mistry R/O Village
-Sandeshwar P.S.-Fatehpur District -Gaya
2. Navin Kumar @ Sarbjit Kumar S/O Mundrika Parsad Yadav R/O Village
-Sandeshwar P.S.-Fatehpur District -Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and petitioner
no. 2 has antecedent of three cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 200 litres of liquor from a
motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession. It is further
submitted that petitioner no. 1 is not the owner of the seized
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.555 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
vehicle but then petitioner no. 2 came to be implicated based on
the fact that he is owner of the seized vehicle. It is next
submitted that no prudent person would use his own vehicle for
committing an occurrence and thus would create evidence
against himself and hence would get implicated. It is also
submitted that petitioner no. 2 was completely unaware that his
friend would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged. It is
lastly submitted that petitioners came to be implicated at the
instance of the local person 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 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 petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, let the petitioners above-named, in
the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial
court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.555 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 716 of 2025, subject to the
conditions 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 petitioners and
if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent even one case
and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of more than three cases, it
would be presumed that petitioners had concealed their
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 no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and petitioner
no. 2 has antecedent of only three cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…