Patna High Court
Md. Hadis Alam @ Hadis GaddiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted as no incriminating possession was established and the Supreme Court precedent supports bail despite prior convictions.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Hadis Alam, was implicated in a case involving the alleged possession of 96.1 litres of illicit Nepali liquor recovered from an open railway line in Bardahi Village, West Champaran. The prosecution alleged offences under sections 274 and 275 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, but no incriminating material was found in the petitioner’s possession. The petitioner, who has four prior similar convictions but is on bail in each, sought anticipatory bail, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2023). The State opposed the bail on the ground of the petitioner’s antecedents. The High Court, noting the lack of direct possession, the open‑place recovery, and the Supreme Court precedent, granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 and specific conditions, invoking Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted despite the petitioner’s prior similar convictions.
- Whether the recovery of illicit liquor from an open public place, without possession by the accused, justifies denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan is applicable to the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 274, 275, 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- prior convictions
- illicit liquor seizure
- open place recovery
- Section 274
- Section 275
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17655 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-188 Year-2025 Thana- SIKTA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Md. Hadis Alam @ Hadis Gaddi S/O Ekbal Gadi Resident of village -
Dhakahi, P.S- Gopalpur, District- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sujeet Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Khurshid Anwar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Sikta P.S. Case No. 188 of 2025 for the offence
punishable under sections 274, 275 of the BNS and section
30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, lodged on
23.12.2025 by the informant.
3. As per the prosecution case, there has been
recovery of 96.100 litres of illicit Nepali liquor from the western
railway line of Bardahi Village.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
recovery of illicit liquors has been made from the western
railway line of Bardahi Village which is an open place
accessible to all. It has next been submitted that the name of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17655 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/4
this petitioner has cropped up in this case on the confessional
statements made by the apprehended co-accused, namely, Ravi
Sah. No incriminating article has been recovered from the
constructive possessions of the petitioner. It has further been
fairly submitted that though the petitioner has got four criminal
antecedents of similar nature but he is on bail in all those cases.
He further submits, by referring the judgment as rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan v. The State of
Rajasthan passed in Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) No. 10587 of 2023 that presence of antecedents may not
come in the way of consideration of grant of anticipatory bail.
As such, this petitioner prays that in view of the judgment of the
Hon’ble the Apex Court, the petitioner’s case may be considered
for grant of the privilege of anticipatory bail.
5. Learned APP vehemently, opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner by submitting that the
petitioners has got four criminal antecedents of similar nature,
he does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the nature of allegation and the recovery
having been made from an open place accessible to all, nothing
incriminating has been recovered from the constructive possession
of the petitioner and above all taking note of the judgment
as rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17655 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/4
Ayub Khan v. The State of Rajasthan passed in Criminal
Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10587 of 2023, this
Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on
bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge,
Excise Court-II, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with
aforesaid PS Case, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following
conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the
family member/relative of the petitioner(s)
who shall provide official document to show
his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear
on each and every date before the Trial
Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason
will entail cancellation of his/their bail bond
by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from
committing any criminal offence again,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17655 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
4/4
take steps for cancellation of his/their bail
bonds.way try to induce or promise or threat
the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist
from committing any criminal offence again,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of his/their bail
bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez
U T
Checking your session…