Patna High Court
Sanoj PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and subsequent verification of his antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanoj Paswan, sought anticipatory bail after fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act concerning the alleged recovery of 8.7 litres of liquor and a motorcycle. He argued that he had a clean antecedent, the seized items were not in his conscious possession, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement of another accused made in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warranted detention. The court, after considering the submissions, ordered provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs. 500 bail bond and two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent by the trial court. It further directed that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would be cancelled, whereas a clean record would lead to confirmation of the bail order.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether a confessional statement made by a co‑accused in police custody can justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of conscious possession of the seized liquor and vehicle affects the bail decision.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, if any, should influence the confirmation of provisional anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- bail bond
- surety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85718 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2025 Thana- Bathnaha District- Araria
======================================================
Sanoj Paswan S/o- Sitaram Paswan R/v- Jimrahi W.No-2, Ps- Bathnaha Dist-
Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Rana
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Meena Singh
======================================================
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 Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 8.7 litres of liquor from a black plastic bag along with a
motorcycle.
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 vehicle and he came to be implicated based on confessional
statement of Md. Ashiq in police custody which does not have any
evidentiary value.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85718 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. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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 Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 73 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 even 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 is a person with
clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.