Patna High Court

Suraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 23 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Suraj Kumar, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 for allegedly transporting 131.34 litres of liquor in a vehicle he owned. He argued that he was not in possession of the liquor, was not arrested at the spot, and was unaware that his cousin Vikash Kumar had misused the vehicle. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, contending that ownership of the vehicle should not automatically render him culpable. The State opposed the bail. The High Court 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. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS, including verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of alleged liquor possession and vehicle ownership.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
liquor seizure
vehicle ownership
criminal antecedent
Bihar Prohibition Act
Section 30(a)
Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9942 of 2026
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2025 Thana- KOCHADHAMAN District- Kishanganj
                 ======================================================
                 Suraj Kumar Son of Pawan Bhagat Resident of Village- Puraini Bazar, P.S.-
                 Puraini, District- Madhepura
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Ms. Asha Kumari, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   23-02-2026                  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 has antecedent of one case and allegation is of

                   recovery of 131.34 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 is 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.9942 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
                                            2/3




          would get implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was

          completely unaware that his cousin, namely, Vikash Kumar

          would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged who was also

          apprehended from the spot.

                       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 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 Kochadhaman P.S. Case No. 179 of 2025

          giving rise of Special Case No. 106 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 more than one case,

          it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his

          antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9942 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
                                                       3/3




                     application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order

                     shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that

                     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…