Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Nisarul Haque @ Nisarul HaqversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The petitioner is granted bail subject to a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties, and specified conditions.

Summary

Nisarul Haque was arrested on 12 January 2026 in connection with the seizure of 927.720 litres of foreign liquor, alleged to be a violation of Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. The petitioner claimed he had no prior criminal record, was neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle from which the liquor was recovered, and that the FIR was fabricated. He also pointed out that the co‑accused driver, Soharab Alam, had been granted bail on the same day. The State opposed the bail application. Considering the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the bail granted to the co‑accused, the Court ordered his release on bail with a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties, and several conditions regarding attendance, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the alleged contravention of Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
  • Whether the absence of possession and a clean criminal record justify granting bail.
  • Whether the bail granted to the co‑accused influences the petitioner’s bail application.

Subjects

  • bail
  • prohibition law
  • excise
  • foreign liquor
  • criminal procedure
  • Section 30(a)
  • clean antecedent
  • possession
  • co‑accused

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22659 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2026 Thana- KUCHAIKOTE District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Nisarul Haque @ Nisarul Haq S/o- Inayat Hussain Resident of Mirlipur Ps-
                 Thawe District- Gopalganj

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mr. Rajendra Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   07-04-2026                    Heard Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, learned counsel for

                   the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned APP for the

                   State.

                                 2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                   12.01.2026, in connection with Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 23 of

                   2026, F.I.R. dated 11.01.2026                registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition &

                   Excise (Amendment) Act 2022.

                                 3. Recovery is of 927.720 litres of foreign liquor.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely

                   implicated in the present case.              He further submits that the

                   allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the

                   petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22659 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
                                            2/3




          He further submits that from perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that

          nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of

          the petitioner rather recovery has been made from the vehicle in

          question and petitioner is neither the driver nor the owner of the

          vehicle in question. He further submits that co-accused person

          namely Soharab Alam who happes to the driver of the vehicle in

          question has been granted bail by this Court today i.e. on

          07.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22562 of 2026 by this Court

          and the petitioner is in custody since 12.01.2026.

                        5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

          State has vehemently opposed the prayer for               bail of the

          petitioner.

                        6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

          and the fact that the petitioner having clean antecedent and co-

          accused person has been granted bail by this Court today, let the

          petitioner, above named, be released on bail 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 &

          Additional Sessions Judge-IV cum Exclusive Special Excise

          Court-II, Gopalganj in connection with Kuchaikote P.S. Case

          No. 23 of 2026, subject to the following conditions :-

                        (1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22659 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
                                                           3/3




                         properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court

                         and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and

                         on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

                         reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

                                      (2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

                         witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

                         for cancellation of bail.

                                      (3) And, further condition that the court below shall

                         verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at

                         any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his

                         criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for

                         cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner.             However, the

                         acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

                         shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of

                         verification.



                                                                       (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-

U          T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.