Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Bikram MahaldarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Bikram Mahaldar applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act read with Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleges that liquor, a motorcycle, a country‑made pistol and three live cartridges were recovered, but none were found in Mahaldar's possession; the charge is based mainly on a confessional statement of a co‑accused, Rahul, made while in police custody. Mahaldar's counsel highlighted his seven prior excise cases and argued the lack of physical possession and the inadmissibility of the confessional statement. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences, the prior record, and the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. The Court, after considering the submissions, declined to grant anticipatory bail, finding the risk and antecedent history sufficient to reject the application.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the offences under the Bihar Excise Act and Arms Act, the lack of seized possession, and the reliance on a confessional statement of a co‑accused.
  • Whether the petitioner’s antecedent criminal record and the possibility of tampering with evidence justify denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Bihar Excise Act
  • Arms Act
  • confessional statement
  • antecedent criminal record
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88058 of 2025
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-422 Year-2025 Thana- KATIHAR NAGAR District- Katihar
                 ======================================================
                 Bikram Mahaldar S/o Yogendra Mahaldar Resident of Mohalla Naya Tola,
                 P.S.- Katihar Town, District- Katihar

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Raghvendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Sucheta Yadav
                 ======================================================
                 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 read with Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the

                   Arms Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of seven cases under the excise act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 23.97 liters of liquor from a bag along

                   with a motorcycle and one country made pistol along with three

                   live cartridges.

                                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 he came to be
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88058 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
                                                        2/2




                      implicated based on confessional statement of Rahul in police

                      custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It is asserted

                      and submitted that cartridges and arms were not recovered from

                      the possession of the petitioner.

                                   5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the

                      anticipatory bail application and submits that petitioner has

                      antecedent of seven cases and allegation is of recovery of country

                      made pistol along with three live cartridges from the place of

                      occurrence and the name of the petitioner transpired in the

                      confessional statement of Rahul. It is next submitted that in the

                      event if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner,

                      the petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence.

                                   6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

                      APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege

                      of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                                   7. Accordingly,        the     instant   anticipatory   bail

                      application stands rejected.



                                                (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.