Patna High Court
Rohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail subject to a bond and verification of antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Rohit Kumar and Chandragupta Kumar, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case (PS Akorhigola Case No. 55 of 2026) alleging their involvement in the seizure of 15.2 litres of illicit liquor under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. They contended that they were falsely implicated, had no connection with the liquor, and that the recovery site was an open field accessible to anyone. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence. The Court, noting the open nature of the recovery place and the petitioners' claim of false implication, directed that they be released on pre‑arrest bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of any prior criminal antecedents. The bail order is conditional on compliance with Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act, and the application was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the open nature of the recovery site and the claim of false implication justify granting bail.
- Whether the bail should be conditioned on verification of the petitioners' criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- illicit liquor
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- false implication
- open place recovery
- bail bond
- criminal antecedent verification
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21257 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2026 Thana- AKHODHIGOLA District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Rohit Kumar Son of Late Murari Singh @ Murli Yadav Resident of Village-
Madhurampur Police Station- Akorhigola District -Rohtas
2. Chandragupta Kumar @ Chunmun son of Anil Singh Resident of Village-
Madhurampur Police Station- Akorhigola District -Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs.Sucheta Yadav, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Akorhigola P.S. Case No. 55 of 2026 registered for the
offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act, as amended uptodate.
3. Allegation is of recovery of 15.2 litres of illicit
liquor from the mustard field of co-accused Ajit Yadav.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely
implicated in the case. They have no concern either with the
seized liquor or trade of liquor in any manner. The place of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21257 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/2
recovery is an open place which is accessible to anyone.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties and the fact that the place of recovery is an open
place which is accessible to anyone, the petitioners, above
named, are directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event
of their arrest or surrender before the learned District Court
within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District Court
where the case is pending in connection with Akorhigola P.S.
Case No. 55 of 2026, subject to the condition as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C / Section 482 (2) BNSS.
7. The District Court is directed to verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found that the petitioners
are involved in some other cases as what has been stated in
Para-3 of the bail petition, this order will automatically lose its
force.
8. The bail application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.