Patna High Court
Pramod RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to stringent conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Pramod Ram, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged seizure of 108 litres of Nepali liquor from a moped. He contended that he was not the owner of the vehicle and was falsely implicated due to a prior criminal antecedent. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner’s criminal record. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which allows anticipatory bail despite the bar under Section 76(2) if no offence is made out, the court held that the petitioner’s claim of non‑ownership and lack of conscious possession warranted bail. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with a Rs.10,000 bond and six specific conditions, including regular appearances before police and the trial court and a prohibition on tampering with evidence.
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).
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged non‑ownership of the vehicle and lack of conscious possession negate the offence under Section 30(a).
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 76(2)
- false implication
- seizure of liquor
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20770 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2025 Thana- KANHAULI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Pramod Ram S/o- Bindeshwar Ram Resident of Village- Dayankothi Dayan
Chhapara Ward No. 2, P.S.- Majorganj, District- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Sucheta Yadav, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mrs. Sucheta Yadav, learned APP
representing the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Kanhauli P.S. Case No. 180 of 2025 for the
offence under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act lodged on 29.11.2025 by the informant, Shambhu
Paswan.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that during vehicle inspection, from a Mopped there is
recover/seizure of 108 liter Nepali Liquor. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
is not the owner of the Mopped but has been falsely implicated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20770 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/4
only because of one criminal antecedent.
5. 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.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that
he has criminal antecedent.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that the categorical statement that he is not the owner of
the vehicle, nothing recovered from his conscious possession,
in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the
privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. Let the petitioner 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20770 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/4
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Excise Court-I,
Sitamarhi in connection with Kanhauli P.S. Case No. 180 of
2025 subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the Police
Station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioner 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 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 which steps shall be
taken for the cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner 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;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20770 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
4/4
(vi) the petitioner 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)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…