Patna High Court
Manoj RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail is granted subject to bond, sureties, and verification of criminal antecedents, with confirmation contingent on the antecedent check.
Summary
Manoj Ray sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022, where police alleged recovery of 60 litres of liquor from an auto and 20 litres from a scooty, none of which were in his possession. The petitioner argued he was not the owner of the vehicles and the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by Lallu while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.5,000 bond with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. If more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; if only one prior case, the bail would be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused made in police custody can form the basis for arrest without other corroborative evidence.
- Whether the trial court should verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents before confirming anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- confessional statement
- liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88823 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-480 Year-2025 Thana- BUDDHACOLONY District- Patna
======================================================
Manoj Ray S/O Hari Shankar Rai R/O - Chinna, Kothi,Lodipur,Bodh
Marg,P.O- G.P.O,- P.S-Buddha Colony,Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 05-01-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of
recovery of 60 litres of liquor from an Auto and 20 litres from a
scooty. It is next submitted that 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 vehicles
and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of
Lallu in police custody which does not have any evidentiary
value.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88823 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
2/2
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 from today, be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.5000/- (Rupees five 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 Buddha
Colony. P.S. Case No.480/2025, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than
one case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had
concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if
on verification it is found that petitioner has antecedent of one
case, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…