Patna High Court
Kara Ray @ Dinesh Ray @ Kiran Ray @ Dinelsh RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Kara Ray, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act concerning alleged recovery of 10 litres of liquor. The petitioner argued that he was not caught in possession, the alleged liquor was recovered from a place not belonging to him, and the case relied on a confessional statement of Nageshwar made in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent under Section 482(2) of the CrPC. The order stipulated that if more than two prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act where the alleged contraband was not recovered from the petitioner’s possession.
- Whether a confessional statement made by a co‑accused in police custody can form the basis for denying anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent of two cases affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- provisional bail
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7479 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-302 Year-2017 Thana- FATUA District- Patna
======================================================
Kara Ray @ Dinesh Ray @ Kiran Ray @ Dinelsh Ray S/o Babaji Ray @
Suraj Ray R/o Village - Gadhochak, P.S - Fatuha, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kahkashan Alam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, 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 has antecedent of two cases out of which one case is
under the excise act and allegation is of recovery of 10 liters of
liquor from a sack.
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 even alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of
Nageshwar 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.7479 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
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. 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 Fatuha P.S. Case No.
302 of 2017 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 more than two
cases 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 has
antecedent of two cases only, in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…