Anup Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Indrajeet Bhushan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Braj Kishore Pd.(App) ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 07-05-2026

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.

¶14

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of recovery of 126.27 litres of liquor from the house of the petitioner and also from nearby dry well and sewer.

¶15

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 the house in question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was petitioner who had kept the liquor in

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30857 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026 2/3

¶17

the house or the liquor kept in the house was within knowledge of the petitioner. It is next submitted that after amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with and he came to be implicated based on secret information which is the easiest way to implicate someone without holding a proper investigation. It is also submitted that of late police has started implicating accused with criminal antecedent, in cases relating to Excise for obvious reason.

¶18

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶19

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. 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 Chakia (Motihari Chakia) P.S. Case No. 91 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

¶20

7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30857 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026 3/3

¶22

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 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 has antecedent of one case in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

¶23

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶24

Sumit/-

¶25

U T

Anup Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anup Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fuljhari Devi @ Sarswati Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Manish Kumar @ Manish Choudhari Vs The State of Bihar

Bharat Pasi Vs The State of Bihar

Ravindra Kumar @ Ravindra Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Dileep Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Monu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar