Patna High Court
Arjun SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted to the petitioner.
Summary
Arjun Sahni sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case (PS Case No. 590 of 2025) for the alleged seizure of 336 litres of liquor under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He contended that his name was supplied by a co‑accused, that he does not own the pick‑up vehicle involved, and that he has no connection to the liquor, also pointing out a lack of compliance with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioner’s three prior criminal antecedents. The court examined the facts, the antecedents and the statutory provisions and concluded that the case was not suitable for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected, with a direction that regular bail may be considered if the petitioner surrenders within six weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement, given his criminal antecedents, disqualifies him from anticipatory bail.
- Whether the lack of compliance with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- Section 103
- Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14219 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-590 Year-2025 Thana- LAHERIYASARAI District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Arjun Sahni Son of Munna Sahni R/o Mohalla - Mulaganj, P.S - Laheriasarai,
District - Darbhanga, (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nitya Nand Tiwary, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 590 of 2025, instituted for the
offences under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that total 336
litres of liquor was recovered from Pick-up.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.
The name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of
disclosure made by apprehended co-accused. The petitioner is
not the owner of the said pick-up. The petitioner has got no
concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. The petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14219 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
2/2
three criminal antecedents. There is no compliance of Section
103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Learned
counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that prima-facie
no case is made out against the petitioner.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case as also the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, in my
view, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned
court below within a period of six weeks from today and prays
for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own merit
without being prejudiced by this order.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…