Patna High Court
Raman Sharma @ Raman KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to conditions and verification of their criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Raman Sharma, Shambhu Sharma and Dhiraj Mehta, feared arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging that 270 litres of illicit liquor were recovered from a Tata Safari. They contended that they were not arrested on the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, were not owners of the vehicle and were implicated by a watchman with whom they have a personal dispute. The petitioners argued that the police had mechanically implicated them without proper investigation and highlighted their prior excise cases as a pattern of false implication. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, ordered provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs 15,000 with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioners’ criminal antecedents; confirmation of bail would depend on that verification.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in view of the alleged offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the alleged prior criminal antecedents of the petitioners affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17840 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2025 Thana- KARJAIN District- Supaul
======================================================
1. Raman Sharma @ Raman Kumar Son of Nunulal Sharma Resident of
village - Sitapur, Ward No. 01, Police Station - Karjain, District - Supaul
2. Shambhu Sharma @ Shambhu Mehta S/O Laxman Mehta @ Lakshman
Mehta Resident of village - Sitapur, Ward No. 01, Police Station - Karjain,
District - Supaul
3. Dhiraj Mehta @ Dhiraj Kumar S/O Narayan Mehta Resident of village -
Sitapur, Ward No. 01, Police Station - Karjain, District - Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Pushpa Sinha.1, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and
41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act,
2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners no. 1 and 2 have antecedent of one case under the
Excise Act and petitioner no. 3 has antecedent of three cases
under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 270 litres
of liquor from a Tata Safari.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17840 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026
2/3
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession. It is further
submitted that petitioners are not the owner of the seized vehicle
and came to be implicated at the instance of the Chawkidar with
whom they are on an inimical term. It is next submitted that if
the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioners
in the occurrence then why he did not inform the police prior to
the institution of the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the
case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that once an accused
is implicated in a case relating to excise the police start
implicating mechanically either at the instance of the
Chawkidar, local person, secret information or confessional
statement without holding a proper investigation of the case. It
is lastly submitted that earlier also petitioners came to be
implicated in cases relating to excise in a similar manner.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, let the petitioners, above-named, in
the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17840 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026
3/3
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is
pending/Successor Court in connection with S.T. Excise Case
No. 2951 of 2025 arising out of Karjain P.S. Case No. 125 of
2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial
Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and
if it is found that petitioners no. 1 and 2 have antecedent of more
than one case and petitioner no. 3 has antecedent of more than
three cases, it would be presumed that petitioners had concealed
their antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory
bail application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail
order shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioners no. 1 and 2 have antecedent of only one case and
petitioner no. 3 has antecedent of only three cases in that event
the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.