Patna High Court
Golu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions and verification of his antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Golu Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Section 317(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of 430.50 litres of liquor from a vehicle. He contended that he had no prior criminal record, was not the owner of the seized vehicle, and that the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by a co‑accused in police custody, which he argued lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and conditioned the order on verification of the petitioner’s antecedent by the trial court. The Court further held that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed, but if the petitioner is found to have a clean record, the provisional bail would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the case.
- Whether the confessional statement of the co‑accused made in police custody is admissible as evidence.
- Whether the alleged involvement in the seizure of liquor justifies denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 317(5), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- liquor seizure
- clean antecedent
- Section 317
- Section 30
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65356 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-400 Year-2025 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Golu Kumar S/o Harendra Sah Resident of village - Banjhula, P.s.- Chakia,
Distt.- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhishek Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh
======================================================
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 Section 317(5) of BNS and 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 430.50 litres of liquor from XUV 500 vehicle.
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65356 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, 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 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 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 person with
clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…