Patna High Court
Rajan SahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail as the alleged recovery was from an open place and no possession could be established, and prior convictions alone do not warrant denial of bail.
Summary
Petitioner Rajan Sahani applied for anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, after police recovered 9.375 litres of illicit liquor from an open bamboo orchard and local residents identified him as involved. The petitioner argued that the recovery was from a public place, he had no conscious or constructive possession, and that Sections 103 and 105 of the Bihar Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were not complied with, rendering Section 76 of the Prohibition Act inapplicable. The State opposed bail, citing five prior similar convictions and the testimony of locals. The court held that mere prior convictions and recovery from an open area without proof of possession do not suffice to deny anticipatory bail. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and additional conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be denied solely on the basis of prior similar convictions.
- Whether recovery of illicit liquor from an open place without proof of possession justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the provisions of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS and Section 76 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act are applicable in this context.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — s. 103, 105
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a), 76
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illicit liquor
- possession
- prior convictions
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition Act
- BNSS
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24260 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2026 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Rajan Sahani Son of Satrudhan Sahani Resident of village-Malikana
Khesrahi, Ps- Patepur, Dist- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shabina Talat
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Indu Kumari Srivastava
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 03-06-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Patepur P.S. Case No. 54 of 2026, registered for the
offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Acting on a tip off regarding trade and storage of
illicit wine, the police conducted raid in a bamboo orchard. In
course of search, total 9.375 litres Indian made foreign liquor
was recovered. The local residents and the Chowkidar disclosed
the name of the petitioner as being involved in such activities.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
admittedly the alleged recovery has been made from a bamboo
orchard, which is an open place easily accessible to all and, as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24260 of 2026(3) dt.03-06-2026
2/3
such, any recovery of illicit wine from that place cannot make
the petitioner responsible. Only on account of past criminal
antecedent, as has been disclosed in para-3, the name of the
petitioner has been implicated in this case. Moreover, there is
complete defiance of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS. Since
no recovery has been made from the conscious or constructive
possession of the petitioner, the rigors provided under Section
76 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act is also
not attracted, is the contention of the learned Advocate.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the
petitioner bears five criminal antecedent of identical nature,
besides the present one and the local people and the Chowkidar
disclosed the name of the petitioner, who has been found
indulge in such activities.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the respective parties and considering the fact that the
alleged recovery has been made from an open place easily
accessible to all, coupled with the defiance of provisions as
provided under Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS; moreover
mere criminal antecedent of a person cannot be a sole ground to
refuse the anticipatory bail unless there is cogent material
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24260 of 2026(3) dt.03-06-2026
3/3
suggesting his complicity in the crime, let the petitioner
abovenamed be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Exclusive Special Prohibition and Excise Court-II-cum District
and Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection
with Patepur P.S. Case No. 54 of 2026, subject to the conditions
laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, with the further condition that one of the bailors
shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.