Rahul Raj v. The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : Mr.Vivek Kunwar : For the Petitioner/s For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 04-11-2025

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 414 and 420 of IPC and Sections 30(a) and 32 of the Bihar Excise Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 56.34 litres of liquor from a car.

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 he 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 and thus would Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74011 of 2025(2) dt.04-11-2025 create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated, it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that Vivek and Rohit would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged, who were also apprehended from the spot.

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, 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 Digha P.S. Case No. 223 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74011 of 2025(2) dt.04-11-2025 anticipatory bail order shall not be 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. Sumit/- U T (Satyavrat Verma, J)