Patna High Court
Binay Ram @ Binay PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The Court grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bail‑bond and surety conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Summary
The petitioner, Binay Ram, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (Tandwa P.S. Case No.128 of 2025) for alleged contravention of Section 30(a) of the Bihar Liquor Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2022, involving the recovery of 150 litres of illicit liquor from a vehicle. He contended that he was not apprehended at the scene, no liquor was seized from his physical possession, and his name was implicated solely through a co‑accused’s statement, which he argued lacked evidentiary value. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the credibility of the witnesses who signed the search and seizure memo, asserting they were not independent. The State opposed the anticipatory bail. Considering the lack of direct possession, the questionable reliability of the co‑accused’s statement, and the doubtful validity of the seizure, the Court inclined to grant anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to furnish bail bonds of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and comply with conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances.
- Whether the co‑accused’s statement constitutes sufficient evidence to justify arrest.
- Whether the seizure of liquor is valid given the alleged lack of independent witnesses.
- Applicability of Section 30(a) of the Bihar Liquor Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2022.
- Scope of the Court’s power under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illegal liquor
- seizure validity
- co‑accused statement
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
- bail conditions
- Bihar criminal law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17336 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2025 Thana- TANDWA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Binay Ram @ Binay Paswan S/O Jitan Ram @ Jitan Paswan Village- Bhagat
Tendua, P.s.- Hariharganj, District- Palamu, at Present Vill.- Bhagat tendua,
P.S.- Tandwa, Dist.- Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindeshwar Prasad Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Tandwa P.S. Case No.128 of 2025 registered for the
offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Liquor Prohibition and
Excise Amendment Act, 2022.
3. As per prosecution case, there is recovery of 150
liters of countrymade liquor from a vehcile.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and he has
falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that petitioner has not been
apprehended on the spot and no recovery has been made from
the conscious physical possession of the petitioner. Learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17336 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/3
counsel for the petitioner next submits that petitioner’s name has
been surfaced on account of statement made by co-accused,
Prasoon Aryan Anand. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that both the witnesses who have sighed the search and
seizure memo are not independent witnesses, which puts a
question mark on the validity of the seizure itself.
5. The learned APP opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the fact that petitioner has not been
apprehended on the spot and therefore, no recovery has been
made from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner
and also given the fact that his name has surfaced on account of
statement made by co-accused, Prasoon Aryan Anad, which
carries no evidentiary value and also given the fact that both the
witnesses who have sighed the search and seizure memo are not
independent witnesses, which puts a question mark on the
validity of the seizure itself, under these circumstances this
Court is inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner above named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17336 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of
Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge,
Excise-2, Aurangabad in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case
No.128 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Prakash Narayan
U T
Checking your session…