Patna High Court
Chandan Kamat @ Chandan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that ownership of the vehicle alone does not preclude anticipatory bail and that provisional bail may be granted subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
Petitioner Chandan Kamat applied for anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 270 litres of liquor from a car he owned. He argued that he was not in possession of the liquor, was not arrested at the spot, and was unaware that Manoj Kamat had misused his vehicle. The State opposed the bail, contending that ownership of the vehicle implicated the petitioner. The High Court considered that mere ownership does not amount to sufficient evidence of participation and noted the petitioner’s single prior case. It granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.5,000, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, with the order to be confirmed if only one prior case is found.
Issues considered
- Whether ownership of a vehicle used in the alleged commission of an offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act justifies denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail bond
- ownership of vehicle
- liquor seizure
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85190 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-306 Year-2023 Thana- MADHUBANI TOWN District-
Madhubani
======================================================
Chandan Kamat @ Chandan Kumar S/O Firan Kamat Resident of Ward No.-
04, Pilakhawer, P.S- Rajnagarr, District - Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md Soban Asghar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of
recovery of 270 litres of liquor from a car. It is next submitted
that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing
was recovered from his conscious possession and he 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85190 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
2/3
create evidence against himself and hence, would get
implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was completely
unaware that Manoj Kamat would misuse the vehicle in the
manner as alleged, who was also apprehended from the spot.
4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
5. 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 Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bond in the
sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge-2nd-cum-Special Judge Excise Court,
Madhubani in connection with Madhubani Town P.S. Case
No.306 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. The application stands allowed.
7. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bond of the petitioner 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85190 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
3/3
it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before
this Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail
order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found
that petitioner has antecedent of only one case, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.