Patna High Court
Vijay NutversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent and compliance with the conditions prescribed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Vijay Nut, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly possessing 50 litres of liquor recovered from a motorcycle. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not caught in possession, and is not the owner of the seized vehicle, contending that the FIR lacks the name of the informant. The State opposed the bail, asserting the seriousness of the offence. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner surrenders within six weeks, furnishes a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties, and the trial court verifies his antecedent. The order is subject to Section 482(2) of the Bihar Non‑Statutory (BNSS) and may be revoked if any prior case is discovered. The court directed that upon verification of a clean record, the provisional bail would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of possession justify provisional anticipatory bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS are appropriate.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- Section 30(a)
- clean antecedent
- high court inherent powers
- Section 482(2) BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7007 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-367 Year-2025 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Vijay Nut S/O Parma Nut R/O Village- Dhenuki Maniya Tola, P.S- Panapur,
Distt.- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dewendra Narayan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-02-2026 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 30(a) of the Bihar Excise
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 50 liters of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended 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 at the instance of local
person, but then the name of the person who disclosed the name of
the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR which casts an aspersion on
the case of the prosecution, when petitioner admittedly is a person
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7007 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
2/2
with clean antecedent
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, 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 Panapur P.S. Case No. 367 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)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…