Patna High Court
Mukesh MukhiyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bail bond, sureties and verification of his criminal antecedents.
Summary
Mukesh Mukhiya sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under IPC sections 272, 273, 414, 34 and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act, where he is alleged to be linked to the recovery of 1,575 litres of liquor from five motorcycles. The petitioner argued that he was not arrested on the spot, no liquor was found in his possession, he does not own the seized motorcycles, and the only link to him is a confessional statement made by co‑accused Anand while in police custody, which the petitioner contended lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.15,000 bail bond with two sureties and subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order further stipulated that if the trial court finds more than three prior cases, the bail would not be confirmed; if exactly three, it would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the pending charges under IPC and the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused recorded in police custody can be the basis for arrest.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent of three cases affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 272, 273, 34, 414
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- excise law
- seizure of liquor
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85038 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2024 Thana- JAYNAGAR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Mukesh Mukhiya Son of Jitan Mukhiya @ Jeet Mukhiya Resident of Village-
Korahiya, P.S.- Jaynagar, District- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Kumari Pallavi, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 20-01-2026 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 offences punishable under Sections 272, 273, 414 and 34 of
the IPC and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of three cases out of which one case is
under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 1575 litres of
liquor from five motorcycles.
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 any
of the seized motorcycles and he came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Anand in police custody which does not
have any evidentiary value.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85038 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
2/2
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. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 Jaynagar P.S. Case No. 146 of 2024, 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 three cases
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
three cases in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall
be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…