Patna High Court
Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act where the allegations do not constitute an offence under the Act and no possession is established, and therefore granted bail to Vikku Kumar with conditions.
Summary
The petitioners Jitendra Kumar and Vikku Kumar sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act involving the seizure of 192 litres of illicit liquor. Jitendra withdrew his application, which the Court rejected, while Vikku argued he was not the owner of the scooty and had no liquor in his possession, despite a prior criminal antecedent. Relying on the Patna High Court Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, the Court examined whether the bar under Section 76(2) of the Act precludes anticipatory bail when the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence. The Court concluded that, since no possession was established and the allegations did not amount to an offence under the Act, anticipatory bail could be granted to Vikku with strict conditions. Accordingly, Vikku was released on bail pending arrest or surrender, subject to bond, sureties, and compliance with multiple procedural conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2) of the Act.
- Whether the petitioner, not being the owner of the scooty and with no liquor recovered from his possession, is entitled to anticipatory bail.
- Whether the prosecution’s information about the petitioner suffices to deny anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 76(2)
- possession
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20473 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2026 Thana- ALAMGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
1. Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Rai S/o- Late Arjun Rai @ Arjun Ray R/v-
Diwan Muhalla Hemampar Ps- Khajekalan Dist- Patna
2. Vikku Kumar @ Vikku Rai S/o- Late Arjun Rai @ Arjun Ray R/v- Diwan
Muhalla Hemampar Ps- Khajekalan Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for
withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application of petitioner no.
1, Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Rai.
2. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of
petitioner no. 1, Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Rai is rejected.
3. Heard the parties.
4. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Alamganj P.S. Case No. 114 of 2026 for the
offence under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
5. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that a scooty was intercepted and there is recovery/seizure of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20473 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/4
192 litre country made liquor which led to the FIR.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner no. 2, Vikku Kumar is not the owner of the scooty and
only because he has one criminal antecedent, that too not under
the excise act that he has been implicated along with other co-
accused.
7. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in
2019 (2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an
application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar
Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar
under Section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation
made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made
out.
8. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that the
Police had information about this person.
9. Considering the submissions of the parties and the
judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as also that
nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession, in
that background, this Court is inclined to extend the petitioner
no. 2, Vikku Kumar the privilege of anticipatory bail with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20473 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/4
conditions.
10. Let the petitioner no. 2, Vikku Kumar be released
on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four
weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Court of
Excise, Patna City, District- Patna in connection with Alamganj
P.S. Case No. 114 of 2026 subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner no. 2, Vikku Kumar who shall
provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner no. 2, Vikku Kumar shall be
appearing before the Police Station as and when required for co-
operating in the investigation;
(iii) the petitioner no. 2, Vikku Kumar shall appear on
each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so
for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner no. 2, Vikku Kumar shall appear
before the concerned police station every fortnight for six
months to mark his attendance and after the end of the period,
the certificate shall be submitted before the Trial Court failing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20473 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
4/4
which steps shall be taken for the cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner no. 2, Vikku Kumar shall in no way
try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with
the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take
steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(vi) the petitioner no. 2, Vikku Kumar shall desist
from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the
State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail
bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
Checking your session…