Patna High Court
Purushottam Sah @ Purushottam PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted as the FIR does not establish a cognizable offence against the petitioners under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
Summary
Petitioners Purushottam Sah and Mantosh Chaudhary sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, where police seized 17 litres of mahua from a two-wheeler. They contended they were not owners of the vehicle and were implicated solely due to prior criminal antecedents. The State opposed, citing the bar under Section 76(2) of the Act and the petitioners' criminal history. Relying on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, the Court held that anticipatory bail could be granted if the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence under the Act. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., including bond, sureties, regular appearances, and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioners' alleged non‑ownership of the vehicle precludes liability under Section 30(a).
- Whether the FIR discloses a prima facie offence under the Act sufficient to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30
- Section 76
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 438
- seizure of mahua
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25509 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2026 Thana- NASRIGANJ District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Purushottam Sah @ Purushottam Prasad S/o Yogendra Sah @ Yogendra Saw
Resident of village- Amiawar, P.S- Nasriganj, Dist- Rohtas
2. Mantosh Chaudhary @ Mantosh Kumar S/o Lalji Chaudhary Resident of
village- Amiawar, P.S- Nasriganj, Dist- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Suresh Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in
connection with Nasriganj P.S. Case No. 74 of 2026 instituted
under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
lodged on 28.02.2026 by the informant, Bhushan Paswan.
3. As per the prosecution story, the police intercepted
a two wheeler and there is recovery/seizure of 17 liters of
country made mahua which led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
none of them are owner of the two wheeler and have been
implicated only because they have criminal antecedent, got
implicated.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25509 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 of 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
they have criminal antecedent.
7. Considering the categorical statement by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that they do not own the
vehicle as also the further submission put forward by him, as
also and the judgment of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), this Court
is inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail.
However, if it is found that any of them owns the said vehicle,
the order shall become infurctuous so far as that petitioners are
concerned.
8. Let the petitioners 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) each with two
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25509 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
sureties of the like amount each in connection with Nasriganj
P.S. Case No. 74 of 2026 to the satisfaction of learned Excl.
Spl. Excise Judge-II, Sasaram 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 petitioners who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners 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 their
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioners shall appear before the concerned
police station every month for next six months to mark their
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;
(iv) the petitioners 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;
(v) the petitioners shall desist from committing any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25509 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…