Patna High Court
Farhan @ Farhan AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting provisional anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Summary
The petitioner, Farhan Alam, feared arrest in a case registered under Sections 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, alleging recovery of three litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He contended that he was not in possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicle, and that the case against him was based solely on a confessional statement of another accused made in police custody, which he argued lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the anticipatory bail application. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The court directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the bail may be revoked; otherwise, the provisional order will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused made in police custody can form the basis for arrest.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of possession and ownership of the seized vehicle negates the charge.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 379
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- theft
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9518 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-646 Year-2022 Thana- JOKIHAT District- Araria
======================================================
Farhan @ Farhan Alam S/O Tifluddin @ Md. Tikluddin Resident Of Village-
Turkeli, Ward No. 08, Police Station- Jokihat, District- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 379/34 of the Indian
Penal Code as well as Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of
recovery of 3 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. It is next
submitted 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 vehicle and he came to be implicated
based on confessional statement of apprehended accused in
police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9518 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
5. 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-bond in the
sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Exclusive Special Excise
Judge-II, Araria in connection with Jokihat P.S. Case No.646 of
2022, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2)
of the Cr.P.C.
6. The application stands allowed.
7. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bond 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9518 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
that petitioner has antecedent of only one case, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.