Patna High Court
Sudama RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bail‑bond conditions and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, with confirmation dependent on the antecedent check.
Summary
Sudama Rai applied for anticipatory bail anticipating arrest in a case registered under Sections 30(a), 38(a) and 41(1) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 3,876.48 litres of liquor from a truck. He contended that he was not in possession of the seized goods, was not the owner of the truck, and that the case was based solely on a confessional statement of another person taken in police custody, which he claimed had no evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. Applying Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court directed the petitioner to furnish bail bonds of Rs 5,000 with two sureties and granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent. The order stipulated that if the trial court finds more than one prior case, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise it would be confirmed forthwith. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in an Excise Act case where the accused is not in possession of the seized liquor and the prosecution relies on a confessional statement of another person.
- Whether the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) CrPC are satisfied for granting anticipatory bail.
- How the accused’s criminal antecedent affects the confirmation of provisional anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 38(a), 41(1)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- bail bond
- seizure of liquor
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91290 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2022 Thana- ALAMGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
Sudama Rai S/o Tuna Rai R/o Village- Dahiyawa, P.S- Chapra Town, Dist-
Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shaheen Begum
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 30(a), 38(a) and 41(1) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of
recovery of 3876.48 litres of liquor from a truck.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of
the seized truck and he came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Ranjeet in police custody, which does
not have any evidentiary value.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91290 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/3
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
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 Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum 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 Alamganj P. S. Case No.176 of 2022, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is
found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case, then
it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before
this Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail
order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found
that petitioner has antecedent of one case only, in that event, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91290 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/3
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…