Man implicated only by a co-accused's police-custody confession in a Motihari spirit seizure granted provisional pre-arrest bail
Motihari Town police seized 1,000 litres of spirit from a pick-up vehicle in 2023 and later named a man who was not arrested at the spot and did not own the vehicle, on the strength of a co-accused's confession in police custody. On 25 September 2026 the Patna High Court granted him provisional anticipatory bail on a Rs 500 bond.
This page records what the cited court records say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →Provisional anticipatory bail granted on 25 September 2026, to be confirmed on verification of antecedents; the excise case is pending.
What happened
The High Court recorded that the case, registered in 2023 under several sections of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, concerned the recovery of 1,000 litres of spirit from a Bolero pick-up vehicle.
The petitioner's counsel told the court that he was not arrested from the spot, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession, he did not own the vehicle, and he was implicated on the basis of a co-accused's confessional statement in police custody, which has no evidentiary value. Counsel also submitted that the 2018 amendment to the Act removed the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender.
Justice Satyavrat Verma granted provisional anticipatory bail on bonds of Rs 500 with two sureties, on arrest or surrender within six weeks. The bail is to be confirmed only if the trial court finds the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
What the High Court recorded
“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”
Cr. Misc. No. 68786 of 2026, order dated 25 September 2026, para 4 (the petitioner's submission) — read the full text
Prohibition, three years on
The case is a prohibition-law seizure with no complaining victim. The petitioner was drawn in three years later through another accused's statement in police custody.
What we could not confirm
The quantity (1,000 litres of spirit) suggests transport in bulk; the order does not say what the spirit was for or whether it was tested. The co-accused's confession is described only by the petitioner's counsel. Names are withheld.