Patna High Court
Raja Kumar @ Raja ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of his antecedents and compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Raja Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of 100 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He argued he had no prior criminal record, was not the owner of the vehicle, and the case was based on a confessional statement made by Pankaj Basfod while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his antecedents. If any prior case is discovered, the bail may be revoked; otherwise, it will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments (or related) provisions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the pending case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused made in police custody can be the basis for denying anticipatory bail
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent warrants grant of bail subject to verification
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- liquor seizure
- clean antecedent
- confessional statement
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9967 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2025 Thana- MALAYPUR District- Jamui
======================================================
Raja Kumar @ Raja Chaudhary S/o Ganesh Chaudhary R/o Village -
Shivandi, P.S - Jamui, District - Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, 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 is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 100 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 be
implicated based on the confessional statement of Pankaj Basfod in
police custody which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye
of law.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9967 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
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 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 Malaypur P.S. Case No.
131 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…