Supreme Court sets aside anticipatory bail rejection order by Justice Satyavrat Verma

In Uma Shankar Prasad vs The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhyan passed a 6-page long order dated April 24, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"Considering the circumstances on record, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief claimed under Section 482 of the BNSS. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court dated 04.11.2025. We direct that in the event of arrest of the appellant, the Arresting Officer shall release the appellant on bail subject to furnishing cash security in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with two like sureties. It is directed that the appellant shall extend complete cooperation in the ensuing investigation. The appellant shall not misuse his liberty and shall not in any way influence the witnesses or tamper with the material on record. With the aforesaid directions, the criminal appeal is allowed."

The criminal appeal had challenged the order dated November 4, 2025 passed by the Patna High Court of  in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 42978 of 2025. Apprehending arrest in connection with crime registered pursuant to F.I.R No.207 of 2024 lodged with Bhagwanganj Police Station, District Patna in respect of the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, the appellant preferred an application before the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in terms of Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that merely because the appellant was the owner of the motor cycle in which fifteen litres of liquor was recovered, he had been proceeded against though not named in the First Information Report; that the appellant was not involved in the offence alleged against him. More importantly, the rider of the motor vehicle was not apprehended or interrogated. In the circumstances, relief of anticipatory bail may be granted to the appellant. 

In Uma Shankar Prasad vs The State of Bihar (2025), in his 3-page long order Justice Verma had concluded:"....the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected."The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act. 

Justice Verma observed: "3. The case was taken case up on 18.07.2025 when a report was called for from the DTO, Patna, but the same till date has not been received, as such, the Court will not wait endlessly for the report." He had recorded that the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was not in a position to rebut the submission of the APP and who submitted that legally petitioner was the owner of the vehicle. When a report was called for from the DTO, it was submitted that petitioner was the legal owner of the vehicle in question.