Patna High Court
Rambabu SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail is appropriate as no liquor was recovered from the petitioner's conscious possession and the precedent permits such relief despite Section 76(2).
Summary
Rambabu Singh applied for anticipatory bail after an FIR under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act alleged seizure of Nepali liquor from a bamboo orchard near his house. The petitioner argued that no liquor was found in his conscious possession and he has no prior criminal record. Relying on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, the court examined whether the bar under Section 76(2) of the Act precludes anticipatory bail when the alleged offence is not substantiated. The court held that, given the lack of possession and the precedent, anticipatory bail could be granted. Accordingly, the petitioner was released on bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000, two sureties, and several conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act despite the bar in Section 76(2).
- Whether the absence of liquor from the petitioner's conscious possession justifies anticipatory bail.
- Whether Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code applies to the present FIR.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30
- Section 438
- liquor seizure
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15187 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-735 Year-2025 Thana- DHAKA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Rambabu Singh S/o Harendra Singh R/o Village- Jhaua Ram, P.S- Dhaka,
Dist- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Suresh Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 Heard Mr.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Dhaka P.S. Case No. 735 of 2025 instituted under Section
30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act
lodged on 31.12.2025 by the informant, Deepak Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on information, the police reached the place of Bipin
Mandal and there is recovery/seizure of 7 liters of Nepali liquor
from the semi constructed house. Further, while returning, on
information, the place of the petitioner was also raided and near
the bamboo orchard, 54 liters of Nepali liquor was recovered.
This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
do not have criminal antecedent and nothing has been recovered
from his conscious possession rather the recovery is from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15187 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/4
bamboo orchard. If granted relief, he shall be diligently
appearing in trial.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in
2019 (2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an
application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar
Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar
under Section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation
made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made
out.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that
the recovery is from bamboo orchard near his house.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that nothing has been recovered from his conscious
possession, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend
him the privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event
of his arrest or surrender before the concerned court within a
period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15187 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/4
the like amount each in connection with Dhaka P.S. Case No.
735 of 2025 to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special
Excise Court-III, East Champaran, Motihari subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as
also the other conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/Voter ID/Pan Card
etc.) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the police
station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned
police station every fortnight for next six months to mark his
attendance and at the end of the period a certificate be submitted
before the Trial Court failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15187 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
4/4
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(vi) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…