Patna High Court
Vijay Kumar @ Bijendra Kumar @ Bijendra SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Vijay Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (272, 273, 328, 307, 302 read with 34, 120B) and the Excise Act (30(a), 30(c), 37(b)). The allegations relate to the recovery of illicit liquor, the death of a person who consumed poisonous liquor, and injuries to two others. The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR, was not in possession of the liquor, and was already in custody at the time of the incident, citing a prior grant of anticipatory bail to another accused, Lotan Mahto, as a basis for parity. The State opposed, highlighting the petitioner’s three prior excise cases and the seriousness of a death caused by spurious liquor, contending that bail could lead to absconding. The Court, after considering the submissions, declined to extend anticipatory bail, finding the allegations and the petitioner’s antecedent sufficient to deny the relief.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite his prior excise cases and the alleged death caused by spurious liquor.
Legislation cited
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 30(c), 37(b)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120, 272, 273, 302, 307, 328, 34, B
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- spurious liquor
- death
- Indian Penal Code
- prior criminal record
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10201 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-730 Year-2021 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Vijay Kumar @ Bijendra Kumar @ Bijendra Singh, Son of Sunil singh R/o
Village - Phanda, P.S. - Karja, Dist. - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Biha
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nachiketa Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Meena Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in Saraiya (Jayattpur O.P.) P. S. Case No.730 of 2021
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272,
273, 328, 307, 302/34 and 120(B) of the I.P.C. and Sections
30(a), 30(c), 37(b) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has antecedent of three cases under the
Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 750ml of liquor
along with Rs.48,735/- in cash and empty bottles from shop
of Ram Ekbal Singh. Further, half field bottles of 375ml
whiskey and 10ml in 180ml bottles of whiskey from shop of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10201 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/4
Manoj and Anoj Rai. It is next alleged that a person named
Hemant Mishra died after consuming poisonous liquor in
Vishambharpur village and two others are undergoing
treatment in private hospital.
4. The 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 has no concern or relation with Ram Ekbal Singh, Manoj
and Anoj Rai. It is also submitted that petitioner is not
named in the FIR and during the course of investigation, his
name transpired in the supervision of Dy. S.P. It is also
submitted that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was
in custody as would manifest from Annexure-2 to the
anticipatory bail application. It is also submitted that several
accused have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail
including Lotan Mahto, who was granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail by this Court, as such, based on parity the
learned counsel seeks anticipatory bail.
5. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. It is next
submitted that what distinguishes the case of this petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10201 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
3/4
with Lotan Mahto is that Lotan Mahto was a person with
clean antecedent and was a senior citizen aged about 76
years whereas petitioner has antecedent of three cases under
the Excise Act. It is also submitted that allegation in the FIR
cannot be ignored that one person died on account of
consumption of spurious liquor and two persons were under
treatment in a hospital. It is next submitted that no doubt,
petitioner is not named in the FIR, but then, his name
transpired during the course of investigation in the
supervision of Dy. S.P. It is further submitted that though it
is submitted that petitioner was in custody when the
occurrence took place, but then, that in itself does not
absolve the petitioner of the allegations as one person died
on account of consumption of spurious liquor and petitioner
has antecedent under the Excise Act and the petitioner
earlier also came to be implicated in cases relating to
excise, but then, the learned A.P.P. fairly submits that this
Court in cases relating to Excise is granting anticipatory
bail, but then, this is a different case where it is alleged that
one person died on account of consumption of spurious
liquor. It is also submitted that investigation in the case is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10201 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
4/4
continuing and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted,
the petitioner may abscond.
6. Considering the submissions made by the
learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…