Patna High Court
Md. Hasan Imam @ Hasan Imam @ GudduversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedent and compliance with the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Hasan Imam, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 114 litres of liquor from a cart. He asserted that he had a clean antecedent, was not the owner of the seized cart, and that the only evidence against him was a confessional statement made by Rajesh while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 500 and two sureties, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent before confirming the bail. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed, whereas a clean antecedent would lead to immediate confirmation.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused made in police custody can be the sole basis for denying anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- Section 482(2) BNSS
- high court order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91832 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-360 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Saharsa
======================================================
Md. Hasan Imam @ Hasan Imam @ Guddu S/O Irfan Alam @ Md. Irfan
Alam R/O -Kayasth Tola, Ward No.-39,P.S-Saharsa Sadar,Dist.- Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pankaj Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-01-2026 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 Section 30(a) 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 114 litres of liquor from a cart.
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 cart and he came to be implicated based on confessional
statement of Rajesh in police custody which does not have any
evidentiary value. It is reiterated and submitted that petitioner is a
person with clean antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91832 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
2/2
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 Saharsa Excise P.S. Case No. 360 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 anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…