Patna High Court
Arvind KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as no offence is made out and no conscious possession is established, subject to the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Arvind Kumar, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged seizure of 900 litres of country‑made mahua wine, although no liquor was found in his conscious possession. He applied for anticipatory bail, contending that the FIR does not disclose an offence and relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) when no offence is made out. The State opposed the relief on the ground of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The High Court, after considering the submissions and the precedent, granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs 5,000 contribution to the District Legal Services Authority and a set of strict conditions, including a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties. The order directs the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and appear regularly before the police and trial court, with non‑compliance leading to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2) when no offence is made out?
- Does the absence of liquor in the petitioner’s conscious possession justify granting anticipatory bail?
- Are the conditions imposed, including the monetary contribution to the DLSA, valid and enforceable?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30
- Section 76
- criminal antecedent
- no conscious possession
- Mahua wine seizure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25479 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2026 Thana- MALSALAMI District- Patna
======================================================
Arvind Kumar S/o Ramashankar Sahani @ Kanpuriya Resident Of Village -
Nuruddinganj Ghat Kinare, P.s. - Malsalami, Dist. - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arvind Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard Mr.Arvind Prasad Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Malsalami P.S. Case No. 114 of 2026 instituted under
Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act lodged
on 27.02.2026 by the informant, Sanjay Kumar Singh.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police upon secret
information, reached the place and there is recovery/seizure of
900 liters of country made mahua wine. This led to the FIR.t
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession and
only because of criminal antecedent, got implicated. Last
submission is that irrespective of the outcome of the present
case and/or accepting the allegation, the petitioner intends to
contribute Rs.5000/- to the District Legal Services Authority,
Patna City Court for purchase of flower pots in the Civil Court,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25479 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
Patna City through Demand Draft issued by the local branch of
the State Bank of India.
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 submitting that the
petitioner has criminal antecedent.
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 that nothing has been recovered from his conscious
possession, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25479 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
him the privilege of anticipatory bail subject to the Rs.5000/-
to the District Legal Services Authority, Patna City Court for
purchase of flower pots in the Civil Court, Patna City through
Demand Draft issued by the local branch of the State Bank of
India. .
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event
of his arrest or surrender before the concerned court within a
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 Malsalami P.S. Case
No. 114 of 2026 to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge
Excise, Patna City 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25479 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
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
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.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Patna for his
perusal and needful.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…