Patna High Court
Dhanesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhanesh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of 122.875 litres of liquor from a three‑wheeler. He contended that the liquor was not found in his possession, he was not the vehicle's owner, and the case against him was based solely on a confessional statement of another accused, which he argued lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The Court, applying Section 482(2) of the BNSS, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties and appear before the trial court within six weeks. The order also directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, stipulating that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; if only one prior case is found, the provisional bail would be confirmed immediately.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the confessional statement of another accused can form the basis for arrest without other corroborative evidence.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482(2)
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7521 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-268 Year-2025 Thana- KORHA District- Katihar
======================================================
Dhanesh Kumar Son of Digambar Mandal Resident of Village - Kalinagar
Hathwara, P.S.- Falka, District - Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, 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 one case and allegation is of recovery
of 122.875 liters of liquor from a three wheeler vehicle.
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 based on
confessional statement of apprehended accused 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.7521 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. 5,000/- (Rupees
Five 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 Korha P.S. Case No.
268 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 more than 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 has
antecedent of one case only, in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…