Patna High Court
Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
Mukesh Kumar sought anticipatory bail after the police registered a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act alleging recovery of 14,400 litres of liquor from a banana orchard. The petitioner argued that he was not arrested at the spot, the liquor was not in his possession, and the FIR omitted the informant’s name, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. The investigating office raised a defect, questioning whether the petitioner had disclosed any criminal antecedent, despite his claim of a clean record. The court ignored the defect, noting the petitioner’s assertion of a clean antecedent and the lack of concrete evidence linking him to the liquor. It granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to a Rs.500 bond, two sureties, and a six‑week period for surrender, with a condition that the trial court verify his antecedent; if any antecedent is found, the bail may be revoked.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. despite the alleged defect regarding his criminal antecedent.
- Whether the defect raised by the investigating office concerning the disclosure of antecedent can be ignored.
- Whether the circumstances of the alleged liquor seizure justify granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- Section 438
- liquor seizure
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70439 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2025 Thana- KALYANPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Mahto S/o Kishnu Mahto R/o Village - Muktapur,
P.S.- Kalyanpur, District - Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 08-01-2026 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 Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by
order dated 18.11.2025, the petitioner was granted a week’s time
for removing the defects as pointed out by the office.
4. It is submitted that the defects as pointed out by the
office was to clearly state as to whether petitioner has criminal
antecedent or not as in the order impugned it was recorded that
petitioner has antecedent of one case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at
para 3 of the anticipatory bail application, it has been
specifically stated that petitioner is a person with clean
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70439 of 2025(4) dt.08-01-2026
2/3
antecedent.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the defects as
pointed out by the office are ignored.
7. Allegation is of recovery of 14.400 litres of liquor
from a banana orchard.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
and is accessible to villagers at large. It is further submitted that
petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of the 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 with clean antecedent.
9. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
10. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70439 of 2025(4) dt.08-01-2026
3/3
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
Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 185 of 2025, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
11. 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…