Suraj Kumar Burnwal Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Sanju Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad- A.P.P. ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 08-07-2026

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶13

The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 09 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized motorcycle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use his own vehicle for committing a crime and thus, would

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44386 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026 2/3

¶17

create evidence against himself and hence, would get implicated. It is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that his friend would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged who also fled from the spot.

¶18

Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.

¶19

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-bonds in the sum 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 Charkapathar P. S. Case No.26 of 2026, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶20

The application stands allowed.

¶21

It is made clear that the learned trial Court after accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner 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 obtaining

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44386 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026 3/3

¶23

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 that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

¶24

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶25

vikash/-

¶26

U T

Suraj Kumar Burnwal v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Kumar Burnwal 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

Raj Kumar Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Solu Kumar @ Sonu Yadav @ Sonu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Suraj Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjeet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Chhatri Yadav @ Kshatriya Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Sohan Prasad @ Sohan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar