Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Munna Rai @ Munna Kumar @ Munna RayversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied.

Summary

Munna Rai applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case (PS 390 of 2025) for possession of 320 litres of illicit country-made liquor seized from a Tata Indigo car, alleged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. He contended that he was neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle and was not present at the scene, asserting his innocence. The State opposed bail, highlighting that the petitioner is already accused in two other excise cases, portraying him as a habitual offender. The Court, considering the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents of a similar nature, was not persuaded to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected, and the petitioner was ordered to surrender before the lower court, which was directed to hear his regular bail application on the same day.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 in view of the alleged offence.
  • Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents in similar excise matters preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • illicit liquor
  • excise law
  • bail
  • criminal antecedents
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18547 of 2026
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-390 Year-2025 Thana- PARSA District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Munna Rai @ Munna Kumar @ Munna Ray, S/o Shambu Ray, Resident of
                 Village- Jaminpur, P.S.- Derni, District- Saran

                                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate.
                 For the State            :        Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   06-05-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest,

                   in connection with Parsa P.S. Case No. 390 of 2025 dated

                   19.12.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section

                   30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

                                 3. As per allegation, 320 litres of illicit country made

                   liquor has been recovered from a Tata Indigo Car bearing

                   registration No. WB-24Y-2471. As per further case of the

                   Police, the driver of the vehicle was trying to run away with the

                   vehicle after dashing. However, the villagers tried to apprehend

                   the driver but he fled away leaving behind the car.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18547 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
                                            2/3




          case. He further submits that the petitioner was not present at

          the place of occurrence nor he was any way connected with the

          alleged offence because neither he was owner nor driver of the

          vehicle in question.

                       5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail

          petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier

          either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.

                       6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the

          bail petition that the petitioner has been made accused in two

          other cases of Excise Act.

                       7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently

          opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail submitting that the

          petitioner has two criminal antecedents of similar nature which

          shows that he is habitual offenders of Excise Act and, therefore,

          he does not deserve bail.

                       8. Considering the criminal antecedents of the

          petitioner of similar nature, I am not persuaded to enlarge the

          petitioner on anticipatory bail.

                       9. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

          petitioner stands rejected.

                       10. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender

          before learned court below and in case of surrender, learned
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18547 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
                                                          3/3




                        court below is requested to hear the bail petition of the

                        petitioner on the same day.




                                                                      (Jitendra Kumar, J)
S.Ali/-

U         T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.