Patna High Court

Rajesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 6 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of his antecedent.

Summary

The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly recovering 160 litres of liquor from his auto. He argued that he had a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of arrest, and was unaware of his driver’s alleged misuse of the vehicle. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering the petitioner's clean record and the circumstances, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.500 bond, two sureties, and verification of his antecedent within six weeks. The order also stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed. The trial court is directed to confirm the bail if the petitioner’s clean antecedent is verified.

Issues considered

What is the applicability of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the petitioner?
Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of possession and clean antecedent justify granting anticipatory bail?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 438 CrPC
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
liquor seizure
clean antecedent
bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64767 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1030 Year-2024 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Rajesh Kumar Son of Gajendra Rai Resident of Village-Sabalpur, Hasti Tola,
                 Police Station- Sonpur, District- Saran at Chapra.
                                                                           ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                    ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Akshay Tripathi, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Arun Kumar, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   06-01-2026                  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

                   41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 160 litres of liquor from an auto.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was

                   recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted

                   that petitioner 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 create evidence against himself and hence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64767 of 2025(3) dt.06-01-2026
                                            2/3




          would get implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was

          completely unaware that his driver whom he had given the auto

          for earning 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, let 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.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 Danapur

          P.S. Case No. 1030 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid

          down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

                       7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial

          court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if

          it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, it

          would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his antecedent

          before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in

          that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be

          confirmed but if it is found on verification that petitioner is a
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64767 of 2025(3) dt.06-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                     person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional

                     anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…