Patna High Court

Niranjan Kumar @ Niranjan RoyversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 3 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Niranjan Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Section 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged possession of 60 litres of liquor. The prosecution’s case rests on a confessional statement by a co‑accused naming the petitioner, although the petitioner claims he was not present at the scene. The petitioner argued that the co‑accused’s confession lacks evidentiary value and highlighted his innocence, while also noting that another co‑accused had been granted regular bail. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the petitioner’s four prior convictions of a similar nature. The Court, weighing the confession and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, declined to grant anticipatory bail and directed the petitioner to surrender and apply for regular bail in the lower court.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act in view of the co‑accused’s confessional statement and the petitioner’s prior convictions.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 317(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
criminal antecedents
confessional statement
liquor seizure
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6130 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-495 Year-2025 Thana- MALSALAMI District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Niranjan Kumar @ Niranjan Roy S/o Chanarik Roy Resident of vill-
                 Kaimashikoh, P.S- Chowk, Distt.- Patna
                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                             ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Anil Chandra, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   03-02-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

                   Malsalami P.S. Case No. 495 of 2025, registered under Section

                   317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 30(a)

                   of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. The prosecution case, in short, is that 60 liters

                   liquor was recovered from scooty.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

                   present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted

                   that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence.

                   Name of the petitioner has transpired in this case on the basis of

                   confessional statement made by co-accused person and the same

                   has got no evidentiary value. The petitioner has got four
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6130 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
                                                         2/2




                       criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

                       submits that other co-accused has been granted regular bail by

                       this Court vide order dated 26.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.

                       80545 of 2025.

                                    5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

                       the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that

                       co-accused person has confessed the name of the petitioner in

                       the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner

                       bears four criminal antecedents of same nature. Hence, the

                       petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

                                    6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                       of the case and criminal antecedent of the petitioner, this Court

                       is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                                    7. The prayer is rejected. However, the petitioner is

                       directed to surrender in the Court below and pray for regular

                       bail. If any such application is filed, the Court below shall

                       consider and dispose of the same on its own merit without being

                       prejudiced by this order.



                                                                    (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-

U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…