Patna High Court
Chandan KumarversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is warranted where the accused lacks direct possession of the alleged contraband and the sole evidence is a custodial confessional statement, provided the accused has a clean antecedent.
Summary
Chandan Kumar sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, alleging recovery of five litres of liquor from a person named Subhash. The petitioner argued that he had no direct possession of the liquor, had a clean criminal record, and the only evidence against him was a confessional statement made by Subhash while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warranted arrest. The court examined the lack of direct possession, the nature of the confessional statement, and the petitioner’s clean antecedent, and applied the provisions of Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. to frame conditions. It ordered provisional anticipatory bail on a modest bond and sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents, with confirmation of bail if the antecedent check remained clean.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail when the primary evidence is a confessional statement made in police custody?
- Does the absence of direct possession of the alleged contraband justify anticipatory bail under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016?
- How should the court apply Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. in framing conditions for anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- bail bond
- police custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7623 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2018 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna
======================================================
Chandan Kumar S/O Ganaur Manjhi @ Manish Manjhi R/o vill.- Hasanpura,
P.S.- Masaurhi, Distt- Patna, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Jiban Pd Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Braj Kishore Pd.(App)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-02-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 5 litres of liquor from possession of Subhash. It is
next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as
such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and
even alleged recovery is from Subhash with whom petitioner has
no concern or relation and he came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Subhash 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7623 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
2/2
5. 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 Court below 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 Masaudhi P.S. Case
No.32/2018, 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 even one case,
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 is a person with clean antecedent, in that
event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.