Patna High Court
Bittu PatelversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- 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
The petitioner, Bittu Patel, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging that 8.640 litres of liquor were recovered from a motorcycle. He argued that he was not in possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicle, and that the case against him was based solely on confessional statements made by Alok and Kundan while in police custody, which he contended lack evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, asserting the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.500 and two sureties of the same amount, and conditioned the order on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The order further stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed, whereas a clean record would lead to immediate confirmation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
- Whether confessional statements made in police custody are admissible as evidence against the petitioner
- Whether the petitioner can be deemed to be in possession of the seized liquor
- Whether the petitioner’s antecedent record affects the confirmation of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30
- liquor seizure
- possession
- confessional statements
- clean antecedent
- bail bond
- surety
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90543 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-351 Year-2025 Thana- BAIRIYA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Bittu Patel Son of Ramesh Patel Resident of Kandhi Tola, Tadvanandpur,
Ward No. 2, P.S.- Bairiya, District- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 8.640 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
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 based on the confessional statement of Alok and Kundan
in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value in the
eye of law.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90543 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
2/2
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 Bairiya P.S. Case No. 351 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 person with clean antecedent in that
event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…