Patna High Court

Raj Karan Singh @ Karan SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 13 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Raj Karan Singh, sought anticipatory bail in a case where 1230.4 litres of liquor were recovered from a boat, alleged under Sections 30(a) and 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He claimed innocence, arguing that the recovery occurred in a public river area and that his name was linked only on suspicion, also noting non‑compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioner’s four prior similar offences and labeling him a habitual offender. The Court, considering the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, and the statutory provisions, declined to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the lower court and apply for regular bail, which the lower court may consider on its merits.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103

Subjects

anticipatory bail
bail
criminal antecedents
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
liquor smuggling

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10593 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2023 Thana- YADOPUR District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Raj Karan Singh @ Karan Singh S/o Harendra Singh Resident of Village -
                 Hirapakad, P.S. - Jadopur, District - Gopalganj

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Pritish Ranjan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   13-02-2026                           Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

                   Jadopur P.S. Case No. 115 of 2023, registered under Sections

                   30(a) and 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. The prosecution case, in short, is that 1230.400

                   liters liquor was recovered from a boat.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

                   present case. The petitioner has got no concern with the alleged

                   recovery of liquor. Learned counsel for the petitioner also

                   submitted that the alleged recovery has been made from a boat

                   near the bank of river which is an open place and the same is
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10593 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
                                                         2/2




                       easily accessible to the public at large. It is further submitted

                       that name of the petitioner has transpired in this case on the

                       basis of suspicion. The petitioner has got four criminal

                       antecedents. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the

                       Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

                                    5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

                       the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that

                       the petitioner is an habitual offender of these type of cases and

                       bears four criminal antecedents of similar nature. Hence, the

                       petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

                                    6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                       of the case and criminal antecedents, this Court is not inclined to

                       grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                                    7. The prayer is rejected. However, the petitioner is

                       directed to surrender in the Court below and pray for regular

                       bail. If any such application is filed, the Court below shall

                       consider and dispose of the same on its own merit without being

                       prejudiced by this order.



                                                                   (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-

U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…