Patna High Court
Kumar ShanuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioners subject to conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Summary
The petitioners, Kumar Shanu, Ravi Prakash and Prashant Mehta, sought bail fearing arrest in a case (Bypass PS No.124/2025) involving alleged offences under Section 52 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act and Sections 292, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. The prosecution’s case was based on photographs and videos showing other individuals in a drunken state, while the petitioners argued they have clean antecedents, are not named in the FIR, and were implicated only on suspicion. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail. The court noted the petitioners’ clean record, lack of naming in the FIR, and the speculative basis of the accusation, and therefore ordered their release on bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 each, two sureties, and conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC. The bail order includes requirements to cooperate with the trial, remain present in court, and prohibitions against tampering with evidence or concealing antecedents. The bail bond is to be accepted without delay for verification purposes.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to persons not named in the FIR but implicated on suspicion.
- Whether the petitioners’ clean antecedent and lack of direct evidence warrant bail under Section 438(2) CrPC.
- Whether the conditions imposed by the court are appropriate for the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS, 2023 — s. 292, 3(5), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- bail
- suspicion
- clean antecedent
- FIR
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Code of Criminal Procedure
- Section 438
- excise offences
- intoxication
- evidence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89063 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2025 Thana- BYPASS District- Patna
======================================================
1. Kumar Shanu S/O Gajendra Kumar Mahta Resident of Chainpura, P.S-
Bypass, District- Patna.
2. Ravi Prakash S/O Deepak Kumar Resident of Chainpura, P.S- Bypass,
District- Patna.
3. Prashant Mehta S/O Pravesh Kumar R/O Bahari Dhawal Pura, P.S- Bypass,
Dist.- Patna.
... ... petitioners/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the petitioners/s : Mr. Saurabh Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 Heard Mr. Saurabh Sinha, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Bypass P.S. Case No. 124 of 2025, F.I.R dated
16.03.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section
52 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act and
Sections 292, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant
being the SHO received some photos and videos where one
Manoj Mehta and three other persons were found in drunken
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89063 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/3
condition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated and the
petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the
F.I.R and on the basis of the video footage the present case has
been instituted against these petitioners and other accused
persons. He further submits that the name of the petitioners have
been transpired on the basis of suspicion. Apart from that the
petitioners are not named in the F.I.R.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the petitioners have clean antecedent, petitioners are not
named in the F.I.R and name of the petitioners have been
transpired on the basis of suspicion, let the petitioners, above
named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court
below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of
the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89063 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/3
Court of Excise Patna City in connection with Bypass P.S. Case
No. 124 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with
other following conditions:-
i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it
is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal
antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of
bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail
bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be
delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…