Patna High Court
Ramnath RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail for the petitioner, subject to conditions and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramnath Ray, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 for allegedly recovering 70 litres of liquor from Baburbani Diyara Area. He asserted that he has a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of arrest, and that the allegation stemmed from a hostile chawkidar. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs 500 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. The order also directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, with confirmation of bail contingent on a clean record. If any antecedent is found, the provisional bail would not be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the present case.
- Whether the allegations under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 justify denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged clean antecedent and lack of possession affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure Code
- B.N.S.S.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16295 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-148 Year-2020 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Ramnath Ray Son of Alakh Ray @ Rampalakh Ray R/o Village - Sukumarpur
Ward No. 2, P.S. - Rustampur, Dist. - Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kahkashan Alam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 27-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 70 litres of liquor from Baburbani Diyara Area.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
and is accessible to villagers at large. It is further submitted that
petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of the
Chawkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is next
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16295 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
2/3
submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement
of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform
the police prior to the institution of the instant FIR which casts
an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let the petitioner,
above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on provisional
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs500/- (Rupees
Five Hundred) 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 Excise G.R. No.
833 of 2020 arising out of Raghopur P.S. Case No. 148 of 2020,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case,
it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16295 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
3/3
application, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…