1035 Litres Liquor Seizure: Patna HC Allows Provisional Anticipatory Bail, Orders Antecedent Check Before Confirmation [Read Order]
The Court noted that neither petitioner was arrested on the spot and their implication was based on a co‑accused’s custodial confession
The Patna High Court has granted provisional anticipatory bail to two petitioners implicated in a liquor seizure case involving 1035.780 litres under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act, 2016. Bail was made conditional on verification of criminal antecedents, with concealment to result in cancellation.
The Court considered two connected anticipatory bail applications arising out of Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 397 of 2025, which involved the recovery of 1035.780 litres of liquor from three vehicles.
The petitioners, Krishnand Rai and Bittu Kumar, sought protection against arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act, 2016. Both argued that they were not apprehended at the spot, no liquor was recovered from their conscious possession, and they were not owners of the seized vehicles.
Their implication, they contended, was based solely on the custodial confession of another accused, Sanjay Kumar, which they argued has little evidentiary value.
Justice Satyavrat Verma, hearing the matter, distinguished between the antecedents of the two petitioners. Krishnand Rai claimed clean antecedents, while Bittu Kumar admitted to having four prior cases.
For Rai, the Court directed that in the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks, he would be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bonds of ₹500 with two sureties. However, the trial court was instructed to verify his antecedents, and if even one prior case was found, it would be presumed that he had concealed information. In such a situation, the provisional bail would not be confirmed.
Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here
For Bittu Kumar, the Court allowed provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bonds of ₹20,000 with two sureties. His bail confirmation was made conditional on antecedent verification: if more than four cases were found, concealment would be presumed and bail cancelled; if limited to four cases, confirmation would follow.
In both cases, the Court stressed that the trial court must carefully verify antecedents before confirming bail.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
