Dhanraj Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act s. 30(a)
- 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. Saurav Anand, Advocate Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, A.P.P. ORAL ORDER 2 18-12-2025
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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 439.92 litres of liquor from an auto, carrier of cycles, bamboo orchard and from the toilet of Vikash Kumar and petitioner as detailed in the FIR.
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 the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81545 of 2025(2) dt.18-12-2025 had concealed the liquor in the toilet or the liquor concealed in the toilet was within his knowledge. It is next submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of the Chawkidar but then it is submitted that if Chawkidar was aware of 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.
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 Singhwara P.S. Case No. 263 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81545 of 2025(2) dt.18-12-2025 would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in 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) Kundan/- 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.