Patna High Court
Shushant Sharma @ Rabsan SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond, sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Shushant Sharma, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, where 36 litres of liquor were allegedly recovered from a motorcycle not owned by him. He argued that the only evidence against him was a confessional statement made by another accused, Ganesh, while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value, and that he had no possession of the liquor. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedents. If the verification shows more than two prior cases, the bail will not be confirmed; if only two cases are found, the bail will be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether a confessional statement of a co‑accused made in police custody is sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s antecedent of two prior cases affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- liquor seizure
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- bail bond
- surety
- Bihar Prohibition Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.725 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-440 Year-2025 Thana- AAJAM NAGAR District- Katihar
======================================================
Shushant Sharma @ Rabsan Sharma S/o Late Hemant Sharma R/o Porla, PS-
Azamnagar, Distt- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 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
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases and allegation is of
recovery of 36 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 Ganesh 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.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.725 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/2
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.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) 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
Azamnagar P.S. Case No.440/2025, 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 more than
two cases, 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 has antecedent of two
cases, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall
be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…