Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Diwakar . For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 16-03-2026

¶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 is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 50 litres of liquor from a place near a Mazar .

¶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 even the alleged recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner and is accessible to public at large and he came to be implicated at the instance of Chowkidar with whom he is on an inimical

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78640 of 2025(3) dt.16-03-2026 2/3

¶17

term. It is next submitted that if the Chowkidar was aware about the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence, then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the instant FIR, which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner admittedly is a person with clean antecedent.

¶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 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 Piro P.S. Case No. 67 of 2025,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 event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even 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

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78640 of 2025(3) dt.16-03-2026 3/3

¶22

confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

¶23

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶24

Sumit/-

¶25

U T

Rahul Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Brajesh Kumar @ Mona Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Rohit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Manish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mithilesh Kumar @ Chandan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sameer Rai Vs The State Of Bihar

Raghuveer Sahni Vs The State of Bihar