Patna High Court

Rahul BhartiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 27 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of his antecedent, as ownership alone does not constitute participation in the offence.

Summary

The petitioner, Rahul Bharti, was implicated in a case (PS Bihta Case No. 806 of 2025) for alleged possession of 200 litres of liquor seized from two motorcycles, one of which he owned. He claimed he had no knowledge of the liquor being in the vehicle and that he had a clean criminal record. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, arguing that he was not in actual possession and that ownership of the vehicle should not constitute participation in the offence. The State opposed the bail. The High Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to a modest bond and two sureties, and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent before confirming the bail.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a person alleged to be the owner of a vehicle from which liquor was seized, under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act
Whether ownership of the vehicle, without actual possession of the contraband, suffices to deny anticipatory bail

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bihar Excise Act
Section 30(a)
ownership of vehicle
clean antecedent
Section 482(2)
BNSS

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6025 of 2026
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-806 Year-2025 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Rahul Bharti S/o Sanjay Bharti R/o Vill- Bahpura, Mohanpur Doghra, PS-
                 Bihta, District- Patna

                                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Harshit, Adv
                                                   Ms.Ankita Kumari, Adv
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Bharat Lal
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   27-04-2026               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 the

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 200 litres of liquor from two different motorcycles.

                             4.     Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner was not arrested 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 one of the

                   seized motorcycles. It is next submitted that no prudent person
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6025 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
                                            2/3




          would use his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and

          thus would create evidence against himself and hence would get

          implicated, it is further submitted that petitioner was completely

          unaware that his friend would misuse the vehicle in the manner

          as alleged, who fled from the spot.

                   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 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 Bihta P.S. Case No. 806 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 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
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6025 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
                                                          3/3




                        person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional

                        anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…