Patna High Court
ApsarulversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to specified conditions and verification of their antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Apsarul and Bagar Miyan, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under IPC sections 272 and 273 and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged possession of liquor recovered from a bamboo orchard and a motorcycle. They argued they have clean antecedents, were not in actual possession at the time of seizure, and that the vehicle owner was unaware of its misuse by a friend, Sanoj Choudhary, who had already obtained regular bail. The State opposed the anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., directing the trial court to verify the petitioners’ antecedents before confirming the bail. If any prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise it will be confirmed forthwith. The order was pronounced by Justice Satyavrat Verma.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the circumstances alleged
- Whether the petitioners’ alleged lack of possession and clean antecedent justify anticipatory bail
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. are appropriate
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 272, 273
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC 272
- IPC 273
- Bihar Prohibition Act
- clean antecedent
- liquor seizure
- vehicle misuse
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8317 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2024 Thana- BAIRIYA District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Apsarul Son of Mosafir Miyan @ Mosafil Miyan Resident of Village -
Malahi Tola, Ward No. 1, Balua Rampurwa, P.S. - Bairiya, Dist. - West
Champaran.
2. Bagar Miyan Son of Wakil Miyan Resident of Village - Malahi Tola, Ward
No. 1, Balua Rampurwa, P.S. - Bairiya, Dist. - West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272 and
273 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 7.74 litres of liquor from a bamboo orchard and
19.8 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8317 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
2/3
submitted that petitioners are not the owner of the bamboo
orchard but then petitioner no. 2 came to be implicated based on
the fact that he is owner of the seized vehicle. It is next
submitted that no prudent person would use his own vehicle for
committing an occurrence and thus would create evidence
against himself and hence would get implicated. It is next
submitted that petitioner no. 2 was completely unaware that his
friend Sanoj Choudhary would misuse the vehicle in the manner
as alleged who also fled from the spot but later was
apprehended but then Sanoj Kumar @ Sanoj Choudhary had
approached this Court seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc.
No. 34225 and 2024 and the same came to be allowed by an
order dated 14.05.2024.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, let the petitioners, above-named, in
the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending/Successor
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8317 of 2026(2) dt.18-03-2026
3/3
Court in connection with Bairiya P.S. Case No. 89 of 2024,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial
Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and
if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of even one case, it
would be presumed that petitioners had concealed their
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…