Nitish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51474 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-2026 Thana- PATLIPUTRA District- Patna ====================================================== Nitish Kumar S/o Sidheshwar Saw @ Singeshwar Saw @ Singeshwar Risav R/o L.C.T. Ghat Mushahari, P.S.- Patliputra, Distt.- Patna, Permanent R/o vill - Mainpura, P.S.- Patliputra, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Dr. (Mr.) Satyendra Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rabindra Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-07-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rabindra Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 7.2 litres of liquor from a hut and a motorcycle was seized.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged recovery is from a hut which does not belong to the petitioner but then came to be implicated based on the fact that he is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51474 of 2026(2) dt.28-07-2026 2/3 owner of the seized vehicle. It is further submitted that no prudent person would use his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and, thus, would create evidence against himself and, hence, would get implicated. It is next submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that his friend would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged who also fled from the spot.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender 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 Patliputra P.S. Case No. 116 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

7. However, 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51474 of 2026(2) dt.28-07-2026 3/3 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