Patna High Court

Samir KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 17 February 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: RITESH KUMAR

Holding

The bail application was denied.

Summary

The petitioner, Samir Kumar, was arrested in connection with the seizure of 184.620 litres of illicit liquor from a car he was driving, under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018. His counsel sought to correct the reported quantity of seized liquor in the bail application. The State opposed bail, highlighting that the petitioner has five pending criminal cases, four of which are of a similar nature, and that he has been in judicial custody since 10‑12‑2025. The court noted the petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle, his license was found in the car, and no witnesses were produced to support the prosecution’s case. Considering the petitioner’s multiple prior offences and ongoing custody, the court rejected the bail application, allowing a fresh application only after the charge is framed.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner given his multiple prior criminal cases and the nature of the alleged offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
Whether the correction of the seized liquor quantity affects the bail decision.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 103

Subjects

bail
illicit liquor
prohibition act
prior criminal antecedents
seizure
quantity correction
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11603 of 2026
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-253 Year-2025 Thana- KASBA District- Purnia
                 ======================================================
                 Samir Kumar S/o Sri Surendra Mohan Thakur Resident of vill- Saraa,
                 Garhbanaili, P.S- Kasba, Distt.- Purnea
                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                             ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-02-2026                      Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission

                   to make necessary correction in total quantity of seized liquor

                   which is mentioned in paragraph no.5 of the bail application.

                                2. Let the same be done during course of the day.

                                3. Heard the parties.

                                 4. The petitioner is in custody in connection with

                   Kasba P.S. Case No. 253 of 2025 dated 02.09.2025, registered

                   for an offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and

                   Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.

                                    5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

                   that total 184.620 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from the

                   Swift Desire car bearing registration no. BR11BD6935 and the

                   petitioner was not arrested on the spot rather the driving license

                   of the petitioner was found lying in foot rest near the driving

                   seat of the car. He further submits that the petitioner is neither
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11603 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
                                                      2/2




                    the owner of the car nor any recovery was made from the

                    conscious possession of the petitioner, the petitioner was only

                    the driver of the car but at the relevant time, he was not present

                    at the place of the occurrence. The learned counsel for the

                    petitioner further submits that even the seizure list was prepared

                    in violation of the provisions contained in Section 103 of the

                    BNSS, since no witnesses have come forward to support the

                    prosecution case. He further submits that the petitioner has got

                    five criminal antecedents out of which four cases are of similar

                    nature and he is in judicial custody since 10.12.2025.

                                    6. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the

                    prayer for bail of the petitioner vehemently and submits that five

                    criminal cases are pending against the petitioner out of which

                    four cases are of similar nature.

                                    7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,

                    I find that the petitioner is an accused of five criminal cases, out

                    of which four are of similar nature and he is in judicial custody

                    since 10.12.2025. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the

                    petitioner is rejected with the liberty to file bail application after

                    framing of the charge.


                                                (Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…