Patna High Court
Mohammad SaddamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting provisional bail subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent and compliance with the conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Mohammad Saddam, applied for anticipatory bail anticipating arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Excise Act for allegedly recovering 50 litres of spirit from a motorcycle. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not arrested at the spot, the seized vehicle is not his, and the only basis for the case is a confessional statement of a third person made in police custody, which he claimed lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, applying Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500 with two sureties, subject to verification of his antecedents. The court clarified that if any prior case is found, the bail would be cancelled; otherwise, the provisional bail would be confirmed. The application was allowed, granting anticipatory bail subject to the stated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC to a person accused of offences under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Excise Act.
- Whether a confessional statement made by a third person in police custody can form a basis for denying anticipatory bail.
- What conditions must be imposed on provisional anticipatory bail pending verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 41(1)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- bail bonds
- clean antecedent
- confessional statement
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.563 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-266 Year-2025 Thana- Raghunathpur District- East Champaran
======================================================
Mohammad Saddam Son of Naeem Miya @ Nayeem Miyan Resident of
Village- Shanichara Tola Godwa Ward No. 08, P.S.- Muffasil, District- East
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhishek Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 50 litres of spirit from a motorcycle.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of
the seized vehicle and he came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Sanjeet in police custody, which does
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.563 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
not have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
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 Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum 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
Raghunathpur P. S. Case No.266 of 2025, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner 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 obtaining
anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before this Court,
in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall
not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.563 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…