Patna High Court
NITISH KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted provisionally, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents and compliance with the stipulated bail conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitish Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after the police alleged that 26.1 litres of liquor were recovered from two motorcycles linked to him. He argued that he had a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of seizure, and that the case against him was based solely on a confessional statement made by Jageshwar while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations under Sections 30(a), 36 and 38 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 were sufficient to justify arrest. Justice Satyavrat Verma granted a provisional anticipatory bail, subject to the petitioner furnishing a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and to verification of his criminal antecedents by the trial court. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, the provisional bail would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the circumstances alleged.
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody can form the sole basis for arrest under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
- Whether the trial court should verify the petitioner’s antecedents before confirming anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 36, 38
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail bond
- surety
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78454 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2018 Thana- FULKAHA District- Araria
======================================================
NITISH KUMAR S/o Binod Yadav @ Binod Kumar Yadav R/o vill -
Madhura West, P.s. - Narpatganj, Distt.- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Sharda Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 05-01-2026 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 Sections 30(a), 36
and 38 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 26.1 litres of liquor from two motorcycles. 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 any of the seized motorcycles and he came to be
implicated based on confessional statement of Jageshwar 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.78454 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
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.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 Fulkaha
P.S. Case No.46/2018, 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…