Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to regular bail notwithstanding the alleged offences and procedural lapses.

Summary

Petitioner Raj Kumar Singh was arrested in connection with the seizure of 24 litres of spirit from his house and 35.25 litres of country-made liquor from his orchard, alleged offences under sections 30(a), 33 and 36 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He applied for regular bail, claiming innocence and alleging that the seizure list was prepared without complying with Section 105 of the BNSS, and that no independent witnesses were recorded. The State opposed bail, citing two prior similar offences. After hearing both sides, the court found that the procedural lapse and the petitioner’s custody since 16‑01‑2026 warranted relief and ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to a condition that he not commit similar offences. The bail was granted by the Exclusive Special Judge Excise‑I, Samastipur.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the alleged offences.
  • Whether non‑compliance with Section 105 of the BNSS in preparing the seizure list affects the grant of bail.
  • Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • regular bail
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • seizure procedure
  • Section 105 BNSS
  • prior criminal antecedent
  • excise law

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19744 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2025 Thana- MUSRIGHRARI District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
                 Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Singh Son of Umesh Prasad Singh @ Umesh Singh
                 Resident of Village - Fatehpurwala, P.S.- Musrigharari, District - Samastipur.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mrs. Renu Kumari, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   25-03-2026                            Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under sections 30(a), 33

                   and 36 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. The case of the prosecution is that from the house

                   of the petitioner, altogether 24 liters of spirit was recovered and

                   from his orchard , altogether 35.25 liters of country made liquor

                   was recovered.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Learned

                   counsel for the petitioner has submitted that nothing has been

                   recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He has been

                   falsely implicated in this case. There is no independent witness
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19744 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
                                                        2/2




                      of the seizure list rather they are police personnel. Police has not

                      followed Section 105 of BNSS while preparing seizure list.

                      Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since

                      16.01.2026.

                                   5. Learned APP appearing for the State has

                      vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted

                      that petitioner is having criminal antecedent of two cases of

                      similar nature.

                                   6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                      considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is

                      inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named

                      petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with

                      Musrigharari P.S. Case No. 186 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond

                      of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like

                      amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special

                      Judge Excise-I, Samastipur with a condition that the

                      petitioner will not indulge in similar nature of offences in

                      future.



                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
shubham/-

U     T


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

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