Patna High Court
Sunny KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. and 482(2) BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunny Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging that 150 litres of liquor were recovered from a motorcycle he was riding. He argued that he has a clean criminal record, was not arrested at the spot, did not have conscious possession of the liquor, and was not the owner of the vehicle; moreover, the FIR omitted the name of the informant. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 and two sureties, directing the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent within six weeks. If any prior case is discovered, the bail will not be confirmed; if the antecedent is clean, 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 Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of a clean antecedent and lack of conscious possession affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- liquor seizure
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bihar Prohibition Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91256 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-619 Year-2025 Thana- MALSALAMI District- Patna
======================================================
Sunny Kumar Son of Gena Rai @ Gena Ray R/o Village - Rikabganj, P.S. -
Malsalami, Distt. - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, 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, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 150 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 the
implicated at the instance of the 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.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91256 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
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 Malsalami P.S. Case No. 619 of 2025, 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 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…