Patna High Court

Pikesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 12 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions and verification of antecedents.

Summary

Petitioner Pikesh Kumar sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 for alleged recovery of 180.750 litres of liquor from his vehicle. He argued that he was not in possession at the time of seizure, that the vehicle was misused by his driver, and that he had only one prior case. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.5,000 bail bond with two sureties and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. If the verification shows more than one prior case, the bail will not be confirmed; if only one prior case, the bail will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances.
Whether the petitioner’s lack of direct possession and the driver’s alleged misuse of the vehicle negate the basis for arrest.
Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 482(2)
Cr.P.C. — s. 438(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 30(a)
liquor seizure
vehicle ownership
criminal antecedent
bail conditions
Bihar Prohibition Act

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91183 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2023 Thana- LODIPUR District- Bhagalpur
                 ======================================================
                 Pikesh Kumar Son of Ramesh Yadav R/o Village - Muradpur, Bishnupur, P.S.
                 - Parbatta, District - Khagaria.
                                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                  Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ankit Raj, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   12-01-2026                  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, 2018.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of

                   recovery of 180.750 litres of liquor from a car.

                                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 came to be implicated based on the fact that he is

                   owner of the seized vehicle. It it next submitted that no prudent

                   person would use his own vehicle for committing an occurrence

                   and thus would create evidence against himself and hence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91183 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
                                            2/3




          would get implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was

          completely unaware that his driver would misuse the vehicle in

          the manner as alleged.

                       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.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) 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 Lodipur

          P.S. Case No. 225 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid

          down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./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 if

          it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than 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
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91183 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                     petitioner has antecedent of only one case 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…