Patna High Court
Rupan RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Rupan Ray, owner of a Mahindra pickup, was implicated in the seizure of 561.6 litres of liquor and faced arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act. He contended that he had a clean criminal record, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of seizure, and was unaware of his driver’s alleged misuse of the vehicle. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that ownership of the vehicle alone should not render him culpable. The State opposed the bail. The High Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and conditioned on verification of the petitioner’s antecedent by the trial court, with the possibility of cancellation if a prior case is discovered. The order directs that if the petitioner’s antecedent is clean, the provisional bail shall be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a vehicle owner implicated in a large liquor seizure under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle and lack of knowledge of the alleged offence justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88268 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP.
District- Gaya
======================================================
Rupan Ray S/o Munni Yadav Resident of Village- Sarai Ranjan, P.S.- Sarai
Ranjan, District- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Nazir Ansari, 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 Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 561.600 liters of liquor from a Mahindra 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 he came to be
implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88268 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
2/3
vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use
his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would
create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated
and at the same time shall bring disrepute to his business, it is
also submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that his
driver and Khalashi would misuse the vehicle in the manner as
alleged.
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 Excise
Sherghati P.S. Case No. 61 of 2021 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88268 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
3/3
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)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…