Patna High Court
Umesh SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Umesh Sahni was implicated in a case involving the seizure of 520 litres of illicit spirit liquor, alleged under sections 274, 275, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The petitioner argued that the liquor was recovered from a vehicle, not from his conscious possession, and that he has a clean antecedent, making the FIR false and fabricated. The State opposed anticipatory bail, invoking section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, the court granted anticipatory bail, subject to a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and conditions under section 438(2) of the CrPC and section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The order also imposed compliance requirements such as cooperation with the trial, presence in court, and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner despite the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the recovery of liquor from a vehicle, and the petitioner’s clean antecedent, negate the necessity of pre‑arrest detention.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 274, 275, 3(5)
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 103, 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 100
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illicit liquor
- prohibition law
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
- recovery procedure
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNS
- Section 76 Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22960 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2025 Thana- MAKER District- Saran
======================================================
Umesh Sahni son of Jugeshwar Sahni Resident of village- Chaki Sohagpur
Ps- Paroo, Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nalin Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-04-2026 Heard Mr. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Maker P.S. Case No. 03 of 2025, F.I.R dated
09.01.2025 registered for the offences punishable under and
Section 274, 275, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and
Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Recovery is of 520 liters of illicit spirit liquor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has clean antecedent and has falsely been
implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion.
He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is
false and fabricated. He further submits that it appears from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22960 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
2/4
F.I.R that nothing has been recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made
from vehicle in question. There is non-compliance with
mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100
of Cr.P.C / Section 103 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner
under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of
the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the pre-
arrest bail would not be maintainable.
6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full
Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar
reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid
down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on
behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant
of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of
counsel for the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been
recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the
petitioner has clean antecedent, let the petitioner, above named,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22960 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
3/4
in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below
within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the
order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No-
03, Saran, Chapra in connection with Maker P.S. Case No. 03 of
2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of
the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following
conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
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.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. 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 antecedent, the court below shall take step for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22960 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
4/4
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)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.