Patna High Court
Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh SinghversusThe 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
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, was implicated in a 2020 FIR for possession of 846 litres of illegal liquor, alleged to violate Sections 30(a), 35, 36 and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He contended that the liquor was recovered from a vehicle he did not own, that no material linked him to the offence, and that the recovery violated mandatory procedures under Sections 103 and 105 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The State opposed anticipatory bail, relying on Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The Patna High Court, referring to the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, held that anticipatory bail could be granted despite the nature of the offence, subject to strict conditions. Accordingly, the court ordered anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is permissible in offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether procedural lapses under Sections 103 and 105 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act bars anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 103, 105, 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- prohibition law
- illegal liquor
- procedural lapse
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
- excise offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24611 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-303 Year-2020 Thana- KOCHADHAMAN District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Singh S/O Gopal Singh Resident of Village -
Bankimchandra Chatterjee Road,P.S. - Siliguri, District -Darjeeling W.B
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Meena Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-04-2026 Heard Mr. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Meena Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Kochadhaman P.S. Case No. 303 of 2020, F.I.R
dated 17.012.2020 registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a), 35, 36, 41 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Recovery is of 846 liters of illegal Indian-made
foreign liquor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has clean antecedent and has falsely been
implicated in the present case. 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 F.I.R that nothing has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24611 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
2/4
been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner
rather the recovery has been made from vehicle in question and
petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle in question and name
of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of disclosure
made by another driver and except the aforesaid, no other
cogent material has come during investigation which suggest the
involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence. There is
non-compliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for
recovery under Section 103 and 105 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24611 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
3/4
of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of
counsel for the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the petitioner, above
named, 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 Judge
(Excise-1), Kishanganj in connection with Kochadhaman P.S.
Case No. 303 of 2020, 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. One of the bail shall be close relative of the
petitioner.
ii. 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.
iii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24611 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
4/4
the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iv. 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
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…