Patna High Court
Pintu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, holding that the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence against him and the bar under Section 76(2) is not applicable.
Summary
The petitioner, Pintu Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after the police linked him to an alleged offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act based on an informant’s statement and a seizure of 31,600 litres of illicit liquor. The prosecution’s case relied on the testimony of Sameer Kumar, who identified the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the seizure was made from Sameer Kumar and that there was no direct evidence of his involvement, invoking the precedent of Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar which allows anticipatory bail despite the bar under Section 76(2) if the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence. The court, considering the submissions and the cited precedent, granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and multiple conditions, including regular police appearances and non‑interference with witnesses. The order stipulated that the bail would be effective if the petitioner is arrested or surrenders within four weeks.
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) of the Act.
- Whether the petitioner can be implicated solely on the basis of an informant’s statement and seizure made from another individual.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 76(2)
- Section 438(2) CrPC
- liquor seizure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21658 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2026 Thana- JAKKANPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Pintu Kumar S/O Munna Paswan Resident of Village- Lowar Court
Purandarpur, P.S- Jakkanpur, dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rakesh Bihari Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Jakkanpur P.S. case no. 95/2026 offence under section
30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act rejected lodged on
30.01.2026 by the informant, Dinesh Mandal.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on secret information about selling of the liquor, the Police
went to the place and recovered/seized 31.600 liters of country
made liquor near a railway line. One Sameer Kumar was
apprehended who gave the name of this petitioner. This led to
the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only
because of one criminal antecedent, the Police has implicated
him. The recovery/seizure is from Sameer Kumar.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21658 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/4
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
Sameer Kumar has named him.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that recovery/seizure is from Sameer Kumar and not from
this petitioner, in that background, this Court is inclined to
extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event
of his arrest or surrender before the concerned court 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
the like amount each in connection with Jakkanpur P.S. case no.
95/2026 to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge Excise-II,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21658 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/4
Patna subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/Voter ID/Pan Card
etc.) 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 day for one month and later every fortnight
for next six months to mark his attendance and at the end of the
period a certificate be submitted before the Trial Court failing
which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation
of 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21658 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
4/4
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)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…