Patna High Court
CR. MISC./57135/2026 of Chhotu Kumar Singh @ Amar Singh @ Veer Amar Singh @ Chhotu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar on 18 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57135 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-348 Year-2026 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Chhotu Kumar Singh @ Amar Singh @ Veer Amar Singh @ Chhotu Kumar Son of Late Prabhu Narayan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57135 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-348 Year-2026 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga ======================================================
Chhotu Kumar Singh @ Amar Singh @ Veer Amar Singh @ Chhotu Kumar Son of Late Prabhu Narayan Singh Resident of Village- Nandapatti, P.S.- Bahera, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Matloob Rab
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
18-08-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of four cases, out of which, two cases are under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 1031.040 litres of liquor from a truck.
3. 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 the seized vehicle.
4. At this stage, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that from perusal of the pleadings made at Para-11 of the anticipatory bail application, it would manifest that the same Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57135 of 2026(2) dt.18-08-2026
records that nothing was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner as well as the vehicle of the petitioner, which amply demonstrates that the truck belongs to the petitioner.
5. On query of the Court from the learned counsel for the petitioner that on what basis it has been submitted that petitoiner is not the owner of the truck when at Para-11 it is pleaded that no recovery was made from the vehicle, on which, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner jis not in a position to reply the query of the court and submits that it appears that inadvertently the said pleading was made.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with liberty to file afresh with proper pleadings.
7. Permission is accorded.
amit/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T