Patna High Court
Bikki Saw @ Bikki Shah @ Vikki SawversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail for the petitioner, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., pending verification of his antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Bikki Saw, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 36 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, relating to the alleged recovery of 909 litres of liquor from a truck. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor, is not the owner of the truck, and that the only evidence against him is a confessional statement made by Chhotu Yadav while in police custody, which he contended lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.500 and two sureties, invoking Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., and directed verification of the petitioner’s antecedent. If any prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Sections 30(a) and 36 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody is sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of a clean antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 36
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- liquor seizure
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64804 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2024 Thana- EXCISE KATORIYA District- Banka
======================================================
Bikki Saw @ Bikki Shah @ Vikki Saw S/O Late Moti Shah @ Moti Saw
Resident of Village- Shimla Bahal, P.S.- Jharia, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dipak Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, 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 36 of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 909 litres of liquor from a truck.
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 is not the owner of the seized truck and came to be
implicated based on the confessional statement of Chhotu Yadav in
police custody which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye
of law.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64804 of 2025(3) dt.06-01-2026
2/2
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 Katoriya Excise P.S. Case No. 91 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 person with clean antecedent in that
event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…