Patna High Court
Sunil KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner subject to bond, sureties and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case alleging offences under Section 317(5) of the BNS and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 430.50 litres of liquor from an XUV 500. He argued that he was not arrested on the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicle, and that the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by a third person, Pappu, while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.15,000 with two sureties and conditioned the confirmation of bail on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, stating that if more than three prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in the present case.
- Whether a confessional statement made by a third person in police custody is admissible for arrest.
- Whether lack of possession and ownership of the seized vehicle precludes arrest.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- possession
- liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- Section 317
- Section 30
- Section 482
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62673 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-400 Year-2025 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Sunil Kumar S/O Bhola Sah @ Ramakant Sah R/O Village - Semra, P.S. -
Chakiya, Dist. - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yerra Madhavi, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Matloob Rab, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 16-02-2026 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 317(5) of
BNS and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of three cases and allegation is of
recovery of 430.50 litres of liquor from an XUV 500 car.
4. 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 Pappu in police custody which does not
have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62673 of 2025(4) dt.16-02-2026
2/2
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. 15000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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
Chakia P.S. Case No. 400 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
three cases 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 has antecedent of three cases only, in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…