Patna High Court
DINESH MUKHIYAversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Dinesh Mukhiya, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, after police recovered 77.25 litres of foreign liquor from a nearby orchard and he fled the scene. He contended that he had no possession of the liquor, that his name was supplied by a hostile chowkidar, and that the seizure memo lacked signatures of two independent witnesses, casting doubt on its legality. The State opposed bail, citing five prior criminal antecedents, though the petitioner was on bail in all those matters. The court noted the absence of any material recovered from the petitioner’s conscious possession and the procedural defect in the seizure memo, and despite the antecedents, granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions under CrPC 438(2) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 Section 482(2). The order also directed verification of the petitioner’s antecedents and provision for cancellation of bail if concealment is found.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite alleged involvement in an illegal liquor case and prior criminal antecedents.
- Whether the defect in the seizure memo (lack of signatures of two independent witnesses) invalidates the seizure and impacts bail considerations.
- Whether the petitioner’s flight from the scene and recovery of liquor constitute sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illegal liquor
- excise law
- seizure memo
- criminal antecedents
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition Act
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16934 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2025 Thana- Sonki District- Darbhanga
======================================================
DINESH MUKHIYA S/o Tetar Mukhiya Resident of Village- Mekana, Police
Station- Sonki, District- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nilendu Kumar Choudhary
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Sonki (Sonaki) P.S. Case No. 138 of 2025, registered for
the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. On a secret information, the police party raided the
orchard of Nagendra Sah and recovered 77.250 litres of foreign
liquor. Seeing the police party, the petitioner fled away.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated.
Nothing has been recovered from his conscious physical
possession. The name of the petitioner was disclosed by the
chowkidar, who has enmity with the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16934 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/3
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Although there are five criminal antecedents against
the petitioner, as disclosed in paragraph-3 of the application,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all these cases,
the petitioner is on bail. Despite the presence of criminal
antecedents, it is evident that the petitioner was not apprehended
on the spot and therefore no recovery has been made from his
conscious physical possession and further given the fact that the
search and seizure memo is not signed by two independent
witnesses which puts a question mark on the validity and
legality of the seizure itself, I am inclined to grant privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, as named above, in the event of
his arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, be
enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Special Judge-I, (Excise Ac), Darbhanga
in connection with Sonki (Sonaki) P.S. Case No. 138 of 2025,
subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and subject to further condition
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16934 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/3
that :-
(i) The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation/
trial.
(ii) The learned Court below would, however, verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case 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, it is expected that the verification process
would be done expeditiously without causing any delay.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.