Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Mohan LalversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The court granted bail to the petitioner, directing a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties.

Summary

Mohan Lal applied for bail in a case registered as Dumariyaghat P.S. Case No.33 of 2026 under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after 341.28 litres of illicit foreign liquor was seized from a Grand Vitara car. The petitioner contended that the liquor was not recovered from his possession, that he was neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle, and that the police failed to comply with Section 105 of the BNSS while making the seizure. He further claimed he was a passer‑by falsely implicated and had been in judicial custody since 23 January 2026. The State opposed bail, citing a prior criminal case against the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the court found merit in the procedural objections and, despite the antecedent, ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite alleged procedural irregularities in the seizure under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
  • Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent justifies denial of bail.
  • Whether the seizure complied with Section 105 of the BNSS.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • seizure
  • procedural irregularity
  • criminal antecedent
  • excise law

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24777 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2026 Thana- DUMARIAGHAT District- East
                                                       Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Mohan Lal S/o- Bhup Singh Resident of village- Ghamadi, Ps- Gohana Dist-
                 Sonipat, Hariyana

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

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

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection

                   with Dumariyaghat P.S. Case No.33 of 2026 registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar

                   Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the

                   petitioner was apprehended in a Grand Vitara car and from that

                   car, 341.28 liters of illicit foreign liquor was recovered.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner has submitted that nothing has been recovered from

                   the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

                   petitioner has submitted that the witnesses of the seizure list are
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24777 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                      police personnel and police have not complied Section 105 of

                      the BNSS while making seizure. It has further been submitted

                      that the petitioner is neither owner nor the driver of the car,

                      rather he is a passer-by who has been falsely implicated in this

                      case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted

                      that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 23.01.2026.

                                   5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                      for the State. Learned APP has submitted that the petitioner is

                      having criminal antecedent of one case.

                                   6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                      considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

                      inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named

                      petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail

                      bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties

                      of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned

                      Exclusive      Special      Excise      Court        No.-3,   Motihari,   East

                      Champaran in connection with Dumariyaghat P.S. Case No.33

                      of 2026.



                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-

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.