Patna High Court
Haruni Rai @ Rama Shankar RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to bond, sureties and verification of antecedents, pending confirmation if they are found to have a clean record.
Summary
The petitioners, Haruni Rai and his son Raj Kumar, were implicated in a case under Sections 30(a), 38 and 40(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly possessing 9 litres of liquor at Haruni’s house and 130 litres at the house of Manoj Rai. They argued that they have clean antecedents, were not arrested at the scene, and that the liquor was stored in a joint family property, making it uncertain whose possession it was. They also contended that the concept of deemed possession was removed by the 2018 amendment and that the FIR was based on undisclosed secret information. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, ordered provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500, two sureties of the same amount, and verification of the petitioners’ criminal antecedents under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., with confirmation of bail if they are found to have a clean record.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act alleging possession of liquor.
- Whether the alleged possession can be attributed to the petitioners given the joint family property context and lack of conscious possession.
- Whether the FIR based on secret information suffices to justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- possession of liquor
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- joint family property
- Section 482
- clean antecedent
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10329 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-563 Year-2021 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Haruni Rai @ Rama Shankar Rai S/o- Late Nanhak Rai R/v- Baburbani Ps-
Sonepur Dist- Saran
2. Raj Kumar @ Rajkumar Rai S/o- Haruni Rai @ Rama Shankar Rai R/v-
Baburbani Ps- Sonepur Dist- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dewendra Narayan Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 16-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a), 38
and 40(i) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 9 litres of liquor from house of petitioner no.1 and
130 litres of liquor from house of Manoj Rai. It is next
submitted that petitioners were not arrested from the spot as
such nothing was recovered from their conscious possession and
petitioner no.2 is son of petitioner no.1 and the house in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10329 of 2026(3) dt.16-03-2026
2/3
question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged
with certainty that it was petitioner, who had kept the liquor in
the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his
knowledge and after amendment in the Excise Act in the year
2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender
has been done away with and petitioners have no concern or
relation with Manoj and they came to be implicated at the
instance of local person but then the name of the person who
disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when
petitioners have not been implicated based on secret
information.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) each
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 Sonepur P.S. Case No.563/2021, subject to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10329 of 2026(3) dt.16-03-2026
3/3
the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial court
thereafter shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioners
and in the event if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of
even one case, in that event, it would be presumed that
petitioners had concealed their antecedent before this court, as
such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed with but if after verification it is found that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent, in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…