Patna High Court
Md. SaddamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as ownership of the vehicle alone did not merit bail in view of the substantial seizure of illicit liquor.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Saddam, the registered owner of a vehicle, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after 151.38 litres of illicit foreign liquor were seized from the vehicle. He applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that he had no conscious possession of the liquor and was falsely implicated merely because he owned the car. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the large quantity of contraband recovered from the vehicle. The Court examined whether ownership of the vehicle alone could justify granting anticipatory bail. Considering the seriousness of the offence and the volume of liquor seized, the Court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail. The order dismissed the petition, leaving the criminal proceedings to continue.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a vehicle owner when a large quantity of illicit liquor is seized from the vehicle
- Whether ownership of the vehicle without proof of conscious possession suffices for bail under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- illicit liquor
- vehicle ownership
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19062 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-373 Year-2024 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Md. Saddam S/o Mohammad Mainuddin Resident of Village- Rampurugan,
PS- Motipur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Asha Devi, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 05-05-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of 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 Act.
3. As per prosecution case, 151.38 litres illicit foreign
liquor was recovered from the seized car of which this petitioner
is registered owner.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been
implicated in this case merely because he happens to be owner
of the vehicle in question. Nothing has been recovered from the
conscious possession of this petitioner. Petitioner claims clean
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19062 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026
2/2
antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that huge quantity of illicit liquor
was recovered from the seized vehicle of which this petitioner is
registered owner.
6. Considering the nature of accusation and the fact
that huge quantity of illicit liquor was recovered from the seized
vehicle of which this petitioner is registered owner, the prayer
for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.