Patna High Court
Kundan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedents and compliance with conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Kundan Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act concerning the alleged recovery of 100 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He argued that he had no prior criminal record, was not in possession of the liquor, and was not the owner of the vehicle, and that the informant’s identity was omitted from the FIR, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after considering the petitioner's clean antecedent and lack of direct possession, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. The trial court was directed to verify the petitioner’s antecedents and confirm the bail if no prior cases are found, otherwise the bail would not be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of possession and clean antecedent justify bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offence.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90295 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-578 Year-2025 Thana- MALSALAMI District- Patna
======================================================
Kundan Kumar S/o Naresh Mahto @ Naresh Bhagat R/o Village -
Nuruddinganj Ghat, P.S - Malsalami, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jay Ram Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-01-2026 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.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 100 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. 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 the seized vehicle and he came to be implicated
based on the instance of local person but then the name of the
person who disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in
the FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90295 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
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.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 Malsalami P.S. Case
No.578/2025, 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 even 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 is a person with clean antecedent, in that
event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…