Patna High Court
Ram Jinish Ray @ Ram Jinish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Jinish Ray, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a FIR (Sursand P.S. Case No. 41 of 2026) for alleged offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, involving the recovery of 2,970 litres of Nepali wine. He contended that he had a clean antecedent, was not present at the scene, and that his name was only mentioned based on a co‑accused's statement, with no other material linking him to the crime and alleged non‑compliance with Section 103 of the BNSS. The prosecution opposed bail, invoking Section 76(2) of the Prohibition and Excise Act, arguing that pre‑arrest bail was not permissible. The bench, relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar (2019), held that anticipatory bail could be granted despite the statutory provision. Accordingly, the court ordered anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC, including cooperation with the trial, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedent.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite Section 76(2) of that Act.
- Whether the procedural requirements under Section 103 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act have been complied with, affecting bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103, 274, 275
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- prohibition and excise
- illegal liquor
- procedural compliance
- Section 103
- Section 76(2)
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18258 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2026 Thana- SURSAND District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Ram Jinish Ray @ Ram Jinish Kumar S/O Rajendra Ray Resident of village-
Karbana, P.S.- Sursand, Distt.- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dwij Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-04-2026 Heard Mr. Dwij Raj, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Sursand P.S. Case No. 41 of 2026, F.I.R dated
19.01.2026 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 30(a), 36 and 41 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
and Sections 274 and 275 of the BNS.
3. Recovery is of 2970 liters of Nepali Gaurabh
Saufi wine.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated and he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18258 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
2/4
has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further
submits that the petitioner was not present at the place of
occurrence and name of the petitioner has been transpired on the
basis of the disclosure made by the apprehended co-accused
person and except the aforesaid, no other cogent material has
come during investigation which suggest the involvement of the
petitioner in the present occurrence. There is non-compliance
with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section
103 of the BNSS. No case, whatsoever, would be made out
against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of
the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the
pre-arrest bail would not be maintainable.
6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full
Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar
reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid
down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on
behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant
of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18258 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
3/4
counsel for the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, in
the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within
a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the Special Judge, Exclusive Special Excise
Court-II, Sitamarhi in connection with Sursand P.S. Case No. 41
of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other
following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18258 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
4/4
any stage 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, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…