Patna High Court

Manish KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 8 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of his antecedent.

Summary

Manish Kumar feared arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 for allegedly recovering 87.390 litres of liquor from a Swift Dzire. He asserted that he has a clean antecedent, was not the owner of the seized vehicle, and that the liquor was not found in his conscious possession, alleging that the watchman’s complaint was unreliable. The State opposed his prayer for anticipatory bail. The Court, after hearing both sides, granted provisional anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 and two sureties, and directed verification of his antecedents. The order stipulates that if any prior case is discovered, the bail will not be confirmed; if his antecedent is clean, the bail will be confirmed forthwith.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
Whether the circumstances of seizure and the petitioner’s alleged lack of ownership and conscious possession justify granting anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 438 CrPC
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
liquor seizure
clean antecedent
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90518 of 2025
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-359 Year-2025 Thana- Daudnagar Excise District- Aurangabad
                 ======================================================
                 Manish Kumar S/O Laxman Singh R/O Village- Nowaw, P.S.- Obra, Distt.-
                 Aurangabad
                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                              Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                               ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Ms. Mukul Kumari, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 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 offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and

                   32(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act,

                   2018.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 87.390 litres of liquor from a Swift Dzire.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was

                   recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted

                   that petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to

                   be implicated at the instance of the Chawkidar but then it is

                   submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90518 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
                                            2/3




          of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform

          the police prior to institution of the instant FIR which casts an

          aspersion on the case of the prosecution.

                       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, let 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

          Daudnagar Excise P.S. Case No. 359 of 2025, subject to the

          conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

                       7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial

          court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if

          it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, it

          would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his antecedent

          before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in

          that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be

          confirmed but if it is found on verification that petitioner is a
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90518 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                     person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional

                     anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…