Dipak Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Provisions considered
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 ss. 30(a), 37
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA Mr. Tanweer Kamal, Advocate Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, A.P.P. ORAL ORDER 2 12-11-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.
Allegation is of recovery of two litres of liquor from a car.
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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75188 of 2025(2) dt.12-11-2025 and thus would create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that Anil Prasad would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged who was also apprehended from the spot along with Dinesh Prasad and Ajay Kumar.
Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, let 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.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 Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 120 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75188 of 2025(2) dt.12-11-2025 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) Sanjay/- U T
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.