Patna High Court
Rahul KumarversusThe 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 antecedent, with confirmation contingent on the antecedent check.
Summary
Petitioner Rahul Kumar, owner of a motorcycle from which 30 litres of liquor was seized, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Sections 30(a) and 32 of the Bihar Excise Act. He argued that he was not in possession of the liquor, had no knowledge of his friend's alleged misuse of the vehicle, and that ownership alone should not create culpability. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and appear before the trial court within six weeks. The order was made subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent; if more than one prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed, otherwise it will be confirmed immediately. The decision rests on the Court’s discretion under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of alleged possession of liquor.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence suffices to attract criminal liability.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS are appropriate for provisional anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- vehicle ownership
- criminal antecedent
- Section 30
- Section 32
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 482
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56386 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2025 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger
======================================================
Rahul Kumar S/O Udit Kumar R/O Chhata, P.S.- Masaurhi, Dist.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 05-01-2026 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 30(a) and
32 of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and and allegation is of
recovery of 30 liters of liquor from a motorcycle.
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 he 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56386 of 2025(3) dt.05-01-2026
2/3
create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,
it is also submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that
his friend would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged.
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, 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 Munger
Muffasil P.S. Case No. 44 of 2025 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 more
than 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56386 of 2025(3) dt.05-01-2026
3/3
verification if it is found that has antecedent of one case only, in
that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…