Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Ray @ Manoj Kumar RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
Manoj Kumar sought anticipatory bail after the police registered a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act alleging that 816.48 litres of liquor were recovered from a pickup vehicle. The petitioner was not caught in possession, did not own the vehicle, and the case against him relied on a confessional statement made by another accused, Deepak, while in police custody. The petitioner argued that the confessional statement lacked evidentiary value and that he should not be arrested. The court granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedents. If more than one prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if only one prior case is found, the bail will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the allegation is based solely on a confessional statement of a co-accused.
- Whether the confessional statement made in police custody has evidentiary value for granting bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- confessional statement
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83439 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2025 Thana- AURAI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Ray @ Manoj Kumar Rai Son of Meghu Ray
Resident of Village- Ramnagar, P.S.- Aurai, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Fahad Khurshid
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 10-07-2026 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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 816.48 liters of liquor from a pick up
vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of the
seized vehicle and came to be implicated based on confessional
statement of Deepak in police custody which does not have any
evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83439 of 2025(4) dt.10-07-2026
2/2
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. 5000/- (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 Aurai P.S. Case No. 211 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 antecedent of
one case only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.