Patna High Court
Sonu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Sonu Kumar was arrested on 31‑12‑2025 in connection with an excise case involving the seizure of 60 litres of country‑made liquor from his motorcycle, alleged to violate Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018. The petitioner pleaded that he has a clean antecedent, was falsely implicated, and that the seizure was not from his conscious possession. He also contended that the investigating agency failed to comply with Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS, rendering the proceedings defective. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, but the court noted the petitioner’s clean record and the procedural lapses. Accordingly, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents. The order directed that bail should not be delayed for verification purposes.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite alleged offences under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.
- Whether non‑compliance with Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS warrants the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and claim of false implication affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 103, 105
Subjects
- bail
- excise offence
- clean antecedent
- false implication
- procedural non‑compliance
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16921 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1144 Year-2025 Thana- EXCISE DANAPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Sonu Kumar Son of Santosh Ray Resident of Village- Chhitnawa, P.S.-
Maner, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prakash Chandra Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Shaheen Begum, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-03-2026 Heard Mr. Prakash Chandra Jha, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Ms. Shaheen Begum, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
31.12.2025 in connection with Excise P.S. Case No. 1144 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 31.12.2025 for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a), 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act,
2018.
3. Recovery is of 60 liters of country made liquor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that it appears
from the F.I.R. as well as seizure list that nothing has been
recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16921 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
the recovery has been made from motorcycle in question. He
further submits that there is non-compliance of Section 103 and
105 of BNSS and the seizure list witnesses are police personnel
and the petitioner is in custody since 31.12.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
petitioner has clean antecedent and there is non-compliance of
Section 103 and 105 of BNSS, let the petitioner, above named,
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Special Excise Judge, Danapur in
connection with Excise P.S. Case No. 1144 of 2025, subject to
the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16921 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…