Patna High Court
Rajan Kumar @ Rajan SahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and conditions, finding the seizure and evidence insufficient to deny bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajan Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after police, acting on a secret tip, seized 180 litres of illicit country-made liquor from a bamboo orchard in Sugauli and alleged his involvement based on a chaukidar's statement. The petitioner contended he had no link to the orchard, no physical possession of the liquor, and that the seizure memo lacked signatures of two independent witnesses, casting doubt on the legality of the seizure. The State opposed the bail, invoking the offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. The High Court noted the procedural deficiencies in the seizure and the absence of direct possession, and consequently granted anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, subject to a bail bond, sureties, and cooperation conditions. The order also directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and provision for cancellation of bail if concealment is found.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the seizure of alleged contraband is questionable and the accused lacks direct possession.
- Whether the absence of signatures of two independent witnesses on the search and seizure memo invalidates the seizure under applicable law.
- Whether the provisions of Section 438 CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are applicable in the present circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- search and seizure
- illegal liquor
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- bail conditions
- evidence admissibility
- independent witnesses
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17529 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-651 Year-2025 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Rajan Kumar @ Rajan Sahani Son of Ram Kumar Sahani @ Ramkumar
Sahani Resident of Village - Mehawa, P.S.- Sugauli, District - East
Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Karandeep Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin
======================================================
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 a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 in
connection with Sugauli P.S.Case No. 651 of 2025.
3. As per the prosecution case, the police on a secret
information regarding illegal activity of the petitioner, swung
into action and reached the place of occurrence. In course of
search, 180 litres of country-made liquor was recovered from a
bamboo orchard. It is alleged that the local Chaukidar disclosed
the involvement of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17529 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/3
the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case having clean background. He further submits that
the recovery has not been made from the conscious physical
possession of the petitioner.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the fact that the recovery of liquor has
been made from a bamboo orchard, to which the petitioner
claims to have no links and further taking note of the fact that
no recovery has been made from the conscious physical
possession of the petitioner and also the fact that the search and
seizure memo has not been signed by two independent
witnesses, which puts a question mark over the legality and
validity on 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 the learned Special Judge, Excise Court No.1,
East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Sugauli P.S.Case
No. 651 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17529 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/3
section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section
482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and
subject to further condition that :-
(i) the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation/
trial.
(ii) the learned Court 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)
HR/-
U T
Checking your session…