Patna High Court
CR. MISC./47204/2026 of Vicky Ray Vs The State of Bihar on 15 July 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47204 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2026 Thana- DEODHA District- Madhubani ====================================================== Vicky Ray Son of Late Bharat Ray @ Sukhdev Ray Resident of Village - Baldiha, Ward No. 9,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47204 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2026 Thana- DEODHA District- Madhubani ======================================================
Vicky Ray Son of Late Bharat Ray @ Sukhdev Ray Resident of Village - Baldiha, Ward No. 9, Jaynagar, P.S.- Jaynagar, District - Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Shailendra 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
15-07-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 274, 275, 3(5) of the BNS and Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 36 litres of liquor from a scooty.
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 he came to be implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47204 of 2026(2) dt.15-07-2026
his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated. It is also submitted that the petitioner was completely unaware that Rupesh would misuse his vehicle in the manner as alleged who was also apprehended 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 for the petitioner, 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.10,000/- (Rupees ten 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 Deodha P.S. Case No.54/2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than two cases, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47204 of 2026(2) dt.15-07-2026
on verification it is found that petitioner has antecedent of two cases, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
amit/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T