Patna High Court
Ramsurat ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.
Summary
Ramsurat Manjhi applied for anticipatory bail after a case was registered against him for alleged offences under Sections 30(a), 41(1) and 52 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, based on the recovery of 20 litres of illicit liquor from his residence. The petitioner contended that no incriminating material was found in his conscious possession and that the charges were purely speculative. The State argued that the liquor was recovered from his house, he had a prior similar criminal antecedent, and cited the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar which denied anticipatory bail in comparable circumstances. The Court examined the material evidence, the petitioner’s antecedent, and the precedent, concluding that the petitioner was not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Sections 30(a), 41(1) and 52 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the presence of a prior similar criminal antecedent and recovery of illicit liquor from the petitioner’s house preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar is applicable to the present case.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illicit liquor
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- bail jurisprudence
- Full Bench precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20018 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2025 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Ramsurat Manjhi Son of Raghuvir Manjhi Resident of Village- Noneya
Misahari Tola, P.S.- Pahar Pur, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in Pahar Pur P. S. Case
No. 23 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 30(a), 41(1), 52 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, 20 liters illicit liquor
was recovered from the house of petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that no incriminating material has been recovered from
the conscious possession of the petitioner and he is no way
connected with the aforesaid recovery. Petitioner has been made
accused only on suspicion.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that 20 liters
illicit liquor was recovered from the house of the petitioner and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20018 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/2
he has got one criminal antecedent of similar nature. He further
submits that petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of
anticipatory bail in view of Full Bench decision of this Court
rendered in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. The State of Bihar
reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089 (F.B.).
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, anticipatory bail
application of the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…