Patna High Court
Tinku KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Summary
The petitioner, Tinku Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly recovering 936 litres of liquor from a white pickup van. He argued that he was not arrested on the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, and was not the owner of the vehicle, contending that the complainant‑chowkidar’s delay in informing police cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. The State opposed the bail, asserting the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after noting the petitioner’s clean antecedent and compliance with procedural requirements such as removal of defects and payment of court‑fee, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and a six‑week verification of antecedents under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The order further stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed, whereas a clean record would lead to immediate confirmation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of possession and ownership, and his clean antecedent, justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the procedural compliance (removal of defects, payment of court‑fee) suffices for granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- CrPC Section 438
- criminal antecedent
- bail bond
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76423 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2024 Thana- BISHANPUR District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Tinku Kumar Son of Sushil Kumar Jha @ Sushil Jha R/o Village- Manika,
ward no.3, P.S.- Sarairanjan, 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. Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 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 the
defects as pointed out by the office have been removed and the
required court-fee has been deposited.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 936 litres of liquor from a white colour pick-up van.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted
that petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76423 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
2/3
be implicated at the instance of the Chawkidar but then it is
submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement
of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform
the police prior to the institution of the instant FIR which casts
an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
7. 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
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
Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2024, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
8. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76423 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
3/3
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…