Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ramesh MurmuversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The Court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Summary

The petitioner, Ramesh Murmu, was implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly possessing 60 litres of liquor recovered from a motorcycle. He asserted that he had a clean antecedent, was not the owner of the vehicle, and was implicated only through the testimony of a chowkidar. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The High Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and appear before the trial court within six weeks. The court directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and stipulated that if any prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, the provisional bail would be confirmed.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the case
  • Whether the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS are appropriate for granting anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Bihar Excise Act
  • Section 30
  • Section 32
  • clean antecedent
  • high court
  • bail conditions
  • Section 482

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90647 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-351 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Banka
                 ======================================================
                 Ramesh Murmu S/O Kapildev Murmu R/O Village - Baliya Khaira, P.S-
                 Amapur, District- Banka

                                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Brij Nandad Prasad
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh
                 ======================================================
                 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(3) of the Bihar Excise Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 60 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was

                   recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of

                   the seized motorcycle and he came to be implicated at the

                   instance of Chowkidar, but then it is submitted that if the

                   Chowkidar was aware about the involvement of the petitioner in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90647 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
                                            2/3




          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, 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 Banka

          Excise P.S. Case No. 351 of 2025, subject to the conditions as

          laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

                   7.     It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court

          shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the

          event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case

          then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of

          seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this

          Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be

          confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a

          person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90647 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
                                                          3/3




                        anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.