Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Dharmendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle, has no criminal antecedent, and the precedent in Ram Vinay Yadav permits bail despite Section 76(2) when no offence is made out.

Summary

Dharmendra Kumar sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged possession of 45 litres of Nepali liquor seized from a motorcycle that he claims he neither owned nor was present on. The prosecution’s case is based on a secret tip that the motorcycle entered India from Nepal. The petitioner contended that an inimical person, Yogendra Prasad, falsely implicated him and that he has no criminal antecedent. Relying on the Patna High Court Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which allows anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) when no offence is made out, the court examined the merits. Finding the petitioner not the owner, lacking prior convictions, and persuaded by the precedent, the court granted anticipatory bail with a set of strict conditions, reserving the right to cancel the bail if any falsehood or misconduct is discovered.

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 allegations in the FIR constitute an offence under section 30(a) against the petitioner.
  • Whether the petitioner’s lack of ownership of the motorcycle and absence of criminal antecedent justify the grant of anticipatory bail.

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • section 30(a)
  • section 76(2)
  • seizure of liquor
  • criminal antecedent
  • FIR
  • secret information

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20789 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-308 Year-2025 Thana- KUNDWACHAINPUR District- East
                                                       Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Dharmendra Kumar Son of Vinod Prasad Resident of village- Hirapur, ward
                 No. 10,(Gurhanwa), P.S. Kundwa Chainpur, District- East Champaran

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :     Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :     Mr. Nityanand, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-04-2026                  Heard the parties.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Kundwa Chainpur P.S. Case No. 308 of 2025

                   for the offence under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and

                   Excise Act lodged on 06.11.2025 by the informant, Amit Kumar

                   Pandey.

                                3. As per the prosecution story, the Police on secret

                   information, intercepted a person near pillar no. 347 coming

                   from Nepal to India on a motorcycle. There is recovery/seizure

                   of 45 liters of Nepali liquor. This led to the FIR.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he

                   neither owns the motorcycle nor was present at the spot but one

                   Yogendra Prasad who is inimical to him, named him and the last
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20789 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                            2/4




          submission is that he do not have any 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 his

          name has cropped up.

                       7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties

          and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as

          also that he is not the owner of the motorcycle and have no

          criminal antecedent, in that background, this Court is inclined to

          extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions.

                       8. If, however, it is found that contrary to the

          statement made in paragraph-3, the petitioner has criminal

          antecedent, the present order shall become infructuous.

                       9. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of

          arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20789 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                            3/4




          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 Excise Court No. 03,

          East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Kundwa Chainpur

          P.S. Case No. 308 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,
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20789 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                                      4/4




                    failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for

                    cancellation of the bail bonds;

                                 (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)
Adnan/-

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.