Patna High Court

Dipu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 8 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

Anticipatory bail is denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Dipu Kumar, was implicated in a case (PS Case No. 115 of 2026) for allegedly possessing 10 litres of illicit liquor, an offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. He applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that no liquor was found in his possession, he was not apprehended at the scene, and his name was mentioned only by local witnesses. The State opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioner has two other pending cases under the Excise Act, indicating a non‑clean criminal antecedent. The Patna High Court, after hearing both sides, declined to grant anticipatory bail, emphasizing the relevance of the petitioner’s prior pending cases. However, the Court directed that if the petitioner surrenders within four weeks, the trial court must decide his bail application on the merits without prejudice from the anticipatory bail denial.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 considering the lack of possession and the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.

Subjects

anticipatory bail
excise law
illicit liquor
criminal antecedent
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Section 30(a)
bail jurisprudence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21733 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2026 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West
                                                       Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Dipu Kumar Son of Late Buddhu Ram @ Premchandra Ram Resident Of
                 Village -Ambedkar Nagar Police Station-Bettiah Town District-west
                 Champaran

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 115 of 2026 lodged on

                   21.02.2026, for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of

                   the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022,

                   pending in the Court of Special Judge Excise Court-I, Bettiah,

                   West Champaran.

                                3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against

                   the sole petitioner. Total recovery of 10 litres of illicit liquor has

                   been made, which is the subject matter of the present case.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21733 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                            2/3




          petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel

          submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious

          possession of the petitioner and he was also not apprehended

          from the alleged place of occurrence. He submits that the

          petitioner’s name has figured in this case only by virtue of the

          disclosure made by local public gathered at the place of

          occurrence. Counsel further submits that the criminal antecedent

          of the petitioner is not clean as there are two cases pending

          against him and in both cases, he is on bail.

                       5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

          bail of the petitioner and submits that criminal antecedent of the

          petitioner is not clean as there are two cases pending against

          him which is registered under Excise Act and this aspect must

          be taken into consideration.

                       6. As such, in the present facts and circumstances, this

          Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly,

          the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby

          rejected.

                       7. However, if petitioner surrenders before the

          concerned Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today

          then in that case, the Trial Court is directed to pass order on his

          surrender-cum-bail application on the same day, without being
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21733 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                                         3/3




                       prejudice that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been

                       rejected by this Court and the Trial Court shall pass order on the

                       merit of this case.



                                                                     (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…