Supreme Court reverses Patna High Court's order, "the material against the petitioner falls short of the threshold required for refusal of anticipatory bail"

In Santosh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Vinod Chandran passed a 3-page long order dated September 9, 2026, wherein, it concluded:" 2. The petitioner is accused of unlawfully dealing in illicit foreign liquor, which was seized from a motorcycle bearing registration No.BR/31/AU/6305, registered in his name. The said motorcycle was being ridden by two boys, who has been arrayed as co-accused. Upon searching the motorcycle, one bottle containing 750 ml of illicit foreign liquor was recovered. 3. The petitioner was denied anticipatory bail by the High Court considering the fact that he is the owner of the aforementioned motorcycle from which recovery was effected. 4. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the material against the petitioner falls short of the threshold required for refusal of anticipatory bail. 5. Therefore, we order that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the offence enumerated above, he shall be released on bail, subject to terms and conditions that the Investigating Officer may deem fit to impose. He is also required to cooperate and submit the evidentiary materials as required by the I.O. 6. Once the petitioner is released on bail by the IO, on directions issued by the IO or summons issued by the jurisdictional court, the petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court and furnish fresh bail bonds and ensure due appearance in the trial. 7. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of."

The petitioner was denied anticipatory bail by page 1-page long order dated August 10, 2026 by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court in connection with FIR being No.5104015260260/2026 dated April 14, 2026 registered with Vaishali Thana (Police Station, Vaishali) District Vaishali, Bihar, for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. Justice Singh had concluded:" 4. Considering the fact that petitioner is registered owner of the motorcycle, from which, aforesaid recovery has been effected, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected."

The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending his arrest in a case registered for offence under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.