Patna High Court
Govind NandanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail can be granted under the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act despite Section 76(2) if the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence and the petitioner has no prior criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Govind Nandan, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under sections 30(a) and 37 of the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act (amended 2022) alleging consumption of alcohol and possession of wine. The petitioner argued that he had no criminal antecedent and was merely present at the scene. Relying on the Patna High Court Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, the court examined whether an anticipatory bail application could be entertained despite the bar in Section 76(2) of the Act. The court held that if the FIR does not disclose a specific offence under the Act, anticipatory bail may be granted. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and a series of conditions regarding police attendance, court appearances, and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application can be maintained under the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act despite the bar in Section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail given the facts of the FIR and his lack of prior criminal record.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act
- Section 76(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
- no criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25477 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2026 Thana- BUDDHACOLONY District- Patna
======================================================
Govind Nandan S/o Shailesh Nath Niraj R/o Village- Khotlraitha, Bikram,
P.O. and P.S.- Bikram, Dist.-Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Roushan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Lakshmi Kant Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Buddha Colony P.S Case No. 124/2026 under section 30(a)
and 37 of Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act and amended Act
2022 lodged on 27.02.2026 by the informant, Monu Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on secret information and having found that some persons
are abusing public under drunken state, they were rounded of
upon using the breath analyzer were found to have consumed
the alcohol beside 260 ml English wine was also
recovered/seized. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a young man, having no criminal antecedent and
only because he was strolling there, got implicated.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25477 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in
2019 (2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an
application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar
Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar
under Section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation
made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made
out.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is
ready to put in his attendance for every day for next one month
before the concerned police station and if it is found that he is
indulged in any criminal activity in future, the State can take
steps for cancellation of present bail bond, if he is granted relief.
8. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also he do not have criminal antecedent, in that background,
this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event
of his arrest or surrender before the concerned court within a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25477 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each in connection with Buddha Colony P.S
Case No. 124/2026 to the satisfaction of learned learned Judge
Excise-01, Patna subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/Voter ID/Pan Card
etc.) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the police
station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned
police station every day for one month and later every fortnight
for next six months to mark his attendance and at the end of the
period a certificate be submitted before the Trial Court failing
which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25477 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
of bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(vi) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…