Patna High Court
RAHUL 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 482(2) of the BNSS and pending verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 70.5 litres of liquor from a scooty. He argued that he was not caught in possession, was not the owner of the vehicle, and that the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by another person, Sonu, while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, 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 further directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; if only one prior case is found, the bail would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner under the circumstances of the case?
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused made in police custody can form a basis for arrest and denial of bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- confessional statement
- police procedure
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7882 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-466 Year-2025 Thana- HISUWA District- Nawada
======================================================
RAHUL KUMAR Son of Surendra Manjhi Resident of Village - Hadsa, P.S.-
Hisua, District - Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mrigendra Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Rabindra Kumar.
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 the
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 70.500 litres of liquor from a scooty.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of
the seized scooty and he came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Sonu in police custody which does not
have any evidentiary value. It is further submitted that once an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7882 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/3
accused is implicated in a case relating to excise, the police
starts implicating mechanically either at the instance of
Chowkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret
information without holding a proper investigation.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
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 Hisua P.S. Case No.
466 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7882 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
3/3
antecedent of one case in that event the provisional anticipatory
bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…