Patna High Court
Pushpendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedent record.
Summary
The petitioner, Pushpendra Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, alleging recovery of 90 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He argued that he had no clean possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicle, and was implicated solely on a confessional statement made by another accused 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 modest bail bond and two sureties, and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents before confirming the bail. If any antecedent is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances.
- Whether a confessional statement of a co‑accused made in police custody can be the basis for arrest.
- Whether the petitioner’s antecedent record must be verified before confirming bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 41(1)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- Section 482(2)
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67766 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2025 Thana- JITNA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Pushpendra Kumar S/O Braj Rai @ Braj Bhushan Yadav R/O Village-
Fulwar, P.S- Lakhora, Distt.- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manjeet Kumar Mishra
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 07-01-2026 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 offence punishable under Sections 30(a), 41(1)
of 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 90 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. It is next
submitted 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 apprehended accused in
police custody which does not have any evidentiary value.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67766 of 2025(3) dt.07-01-2026
2/2
5. 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 Court below
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 Jitna P.S.
Case No.174/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one
case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had
concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if
on verification 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)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…