Case Law Details
Krishnand Rai Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court)
The Patna High Court heard two anticipatory bail applications arising from the same police case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act, involving alleged recovery of 1035.780 litres of liquor from three different vehicles. In both matters, the petitioners sought anticipatory bail on the ground that they were not arrested at the spot, no liquor was recovered from their conscious possession, they were not owners of the seized vehicles, and their implication was based solely on the confessional statement of a co-accused recorded in police custody, which was argued to have no evidentiary value.
In the first application, the petitioner claimed to have clean antecedents. The Court directed that in the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks, the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of ₹500 with two sureties, subject to statutory conditions. The trial court was directed to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, with a clear stipulation that if even one prior case was found, the provisional bail would not be confirmed; however, if the petitioner was found to have clean antecedents, the bail was to be confirmed forthwith.
In the second application, the petitioner admittedly had antecedents of four cases. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of ₹20,000 with two sureties, again subject to statutory conditions. The trial court was directed to verify the antecedents, with confirmation of bail contingent upon the finding that the petitioner had no more than four prior cases. Both applications were allowed with these conditional directions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. 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.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 1035.780 litres of liquor from three different vehicles.
4. 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 is not the owner of any of the seized vehicle and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of Sanjay Kumar in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.
6. 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 Runnisaidpur P. S. Case No.397 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. 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 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.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 81861 of 2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. 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.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of four cases and allegation is of recovery of 1035.780 litres of liquor from three different vehicles.
4. 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 is not the owner of any of the seized vehicle and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of Sanjay Kumar in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.
6. 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.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) 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 Runnisaidpur P. S. Case No.397 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. 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 more than four cases, then it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining 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 has antecedent of four cases only, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
Author Bio
