Patna High Court

Ranjan Mahto @ Ranjan Kumar MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

Anticipatory bail is denied to the petitioners.

Summary

The petitioners, Ranjan Mahto and Sunil Mahto, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case (PS Case No. 785 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 30(a), 30(c), 34 and 36 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, where 115 litres of illicit liquor was recovered. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were among four accused, with the recovery made from an open place and their names disclosed by a co‑accused. The petitioners contended they had no conscious possession of the liquor and were innocent, noting that the recovery was not from their possession and that one petitioner had a clean record. The State opposed bail. The High Court, after hearing, refused anticipatory bail, directing the petitioners to surrender within four weeks and the trial court to decide their bail application on merits without prejudice.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
Whether the recovery of illicit liquor from an open place and the disclosure by a co‑accused establish sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail.
Whether the petitioners' criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail.

Subjects

anticipatory bail
illicit liquor
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
criminal procedure
bail denial
offence under sections 30, 34, 36

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22661 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-785 Year-2025 Thana- DARIYAPUR District- Saran
                 ======================================================
           1.     Ranjan Mahto @ Ranjan Kumar Mahto S/o Bujali Mahto R/o Village-
                  Adamur, PS- Dariyarpur, Distt- Saran
           2.    Sunil Mahto S/o Budhan Mahto R/o Village- Adamur, PS- Dariyarpur, Distt-
                 Saran

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s

                                                       Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

                                                  ORAL ORDER

2   16-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

                   A.P.P for the State.

                                2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in

                   connection with Dariyapur P.S. Case No. 785 of 2025 lodged on

                   14.12.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a),

                   30(c), 34 & 36 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise

                   (Amendment) Act, 2022, pending in the Court of Additional

                   Sessions Judge-cum-Exclusive Special Court Excise Act-I,

                   Saran at Chapra.

                                3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22661 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
                                            2/3




          four named accused persons including the present petitioners.

          Total recovery of 115 litres of illicit liquor has been made,

          which is the subject matter of the present case.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the

          petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.

          Counsel submits that nothing has been recovered from the

          conscious possession of the petitioners and the said recovery has

          been made from an open place which is accessible to all.

          Counsel submits that the name of the petitioners have figured in

          this case only by virtue of the disclosure made by apprehended

          accused person. Counsel further submits that the petitioner no.2

          has two criminal antecedents and the petitioner no.1 has clean

          antecedent.

                       5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

          bail of the petitioners.

                       6. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is

          not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the

          prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners stand rejected.

                       7. However, if petitioners surrender 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

          their surrender-cum-bail application on the same day, without
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22661 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
                                                         3/3




                       being prejudice that the anticipatory bail of the petitioners have

                       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…