Patna High Court
Dilip RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted as the FIR did not establish that the petitioner had possession of the liquor and the bar under Section 76(2) was not applicable.
Summary
Dilip Ray applied for anticipatory bail in an excise case where the police alleged that a motorcycle he owned was used to transport 24 litres of illicit liquor, leading to an FIR under sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The petitioner contended that the motorcycle had been sold to a scrap dealer fifteen years earlier and that he had no criminal antecedent or possession of the liquor. Relying on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which held that anticipatory bail can be granted despite the bar in Section 76(2) if the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence against the applicant, the court examined the facts. The court found no material indicating that the petitioner had the liquor in his conscious possession and noted his clean record. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a set of conditions, including a bail bond, sureties, regular appearances before police and the trial court, and non‑interference with witnesses or 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) when the accused claims no possession of the seized liquor.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedent and the sale of the vehicle prior to the alleged offence justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 76(2) bar
- possession
- motor vehicle seizure
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21584 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1095 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Dilip Ray Son of Rajendra Ray Resident of Village- Turki Khararu @ Turki
Khararo, P.S.- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yugal Kishore, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ahmad Ali, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Excise P.S. Case No. 1095 of 2025 for the
offence under sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act lodged on 24.08.2025 by the informant, Vijay
Kumar Pandit.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that a motorcycle was intercepted and there is recovery/seizure
of 24 liter country made liquor. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though he owns the motorcycle bearing registration no.
BR06U3245 outlived its utility after fifteen years and
accordingly was sold to a scrap dealer, he has no criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21584 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/4
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
owns the motorcycle.
7. Taking into account 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 and has no criminal antecedent, 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.21584 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/4
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court
No.-II, Muzaffarpur in connection with Excise P.S. Case No.
1095 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.21584 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
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…