Patna High Court
Rajan Kumar @ Rajan YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail, subject to the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482 BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajan Kumar, applied for pre‑arrest (anticipatory) bail in a case registered under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged possession of illicit Nepali liquor. The FIR alleged that police, acting on secret information, seized liquor from a car and motorcycle and apprehended two accused, while the petitioner’s name surfaced only through statements of co‑accused. The petitioner contended he was neither present at the seizure, nor in possession of the liquor, nor the owner or driver of the vehicle, and thus sought bail. The State opposed the bail, arguing the disclosures were sufficient to justify arrest. After considering the FIR, the lack of any recovery from the petitioner’s conscious possession, and the fact that his involvement was based solely on co‑accused testimony, the court held that he had made out a prima facie case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the court directed that the petitioner be released on pre‑arrest bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482 of the BNSS, and directed the District Court to verify his criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the allegations under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the disclosure by co‑accused persons alone suffices to justify denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s non‑presence at the scene of seizure and lack of recovery from his possession affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic and Smuggling (BNSS) Act — s. 482
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- pre‑arrest bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- illicit liquor
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNSS
- criminal procedure
- bail order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21315 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2025 Thana- JITNA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Rajan Kumar @ Rajan Yadav Son of Rambabu Rai Resident of Village -
Champapur, P.S.- Ghorasahan, 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 : Ms.Indu Kumari Srivastava, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Indu Kumari
Srivastava , learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Jitna P.S. Case No. 106 of 2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Section 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, as amended upto date.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, on a secret
information, the police intercepted a car and motorcycle
carrying illicit liquor, apprehended two accused while others
fled, and upon search recovered 180 litres and 9 litres of Nepali
liquor from the respective vehicles.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21315 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/3
falsely implicated in the case. The alleged recovery of Nepali
liquor has no connection with the petitioner, and his name has
surfaced only on the basis of disclosure made by the
apprehended co-accused persons. The petitioner was neither
arrested from the spot nor any recovery has been made from his
conscious possession, and he is neither the owner nor the driver
of the alleged vehicle. On these grounds, petitioner seeks to be
released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having considered the allegations made
in the FIR and the materials available on record, including the
fact that the petitioner has not been apprehended at the place of
occurrence, no recovery has been made from his conscious
possession, and his name has surfaced only on the basis of
disclosure made by the co-accused persons, I am of the opinion
that the petitioner has, prima facie, made out a case to be
released on anticipatory bail.
7. The petitioner, above named, is directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21315 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/3
from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned District Court where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Jitna P.S. Case No.
106 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482 of the BNSS.
8. The District Court is directed to verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that
the petitioner is involved in some other cases as what has
been stated in Para-3 of the bail petition, this order will
automatically lose its force.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…