Patna High Court
Rohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as no offence under section 30(a) is made out against the petitioner, subject to the stipulated conditions.
Summary
Rohit Kumar applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly transporting 75 litres of illicit liquor in a seized motorcycle. He contended that he neither owned nor drove the vehicle and that his name was supplied by locals due to enmity. The State argued that his name appeared as the person who escaped when the motorcycle was intercepted. Relying on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) if no offence is established, the Court examined the petitioner’s lack of ownership, absence of criminal antecedents, and no possession of the liquor. The Court granted anticipatory bail with a bail bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, imposing several conditions including regular appearances before police and courts, and prohibition against tampering with evidence. The order remains subject to revocation if a criminal antecedent is later discovered.
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 petitioner can be said to have committed an offence under section 30(a) given he is not the owner or driver of the seized vehicle.
- Whether the conditions imposed are appropriate for the grant of anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- section 30(a)
- section 76(2)
- illegal liquor
- seizure
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25862 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2026 Thana- RAJAOLI District- Nawada
======================================================
Rohit Kumar Son of Late Jaynandan Singh Resident of village- Hardiya, Ps-
Rajauli, Dist- Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Rajaoli P.S. Case No. 118 of 2026 for the
offence under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act lodged on 03.03.2026 by the informant, Pawan Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police on secret
information, intercepted a motorcycle and from the sacks kept in
between the passengers, 75 liters of country-made liquor
recovered/seized. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
neither he is the owner nor the driver of the vehicle, only
because the locals gave the name, due to enmity, got implicated.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25862 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
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 his
name has come up when the motorcycle was intercepted as the
person who escaped.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that he neither owns the motorcycle nor has any criminal
antecedent and nothing has been recovered from his conscious
possession, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend
him the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. If, however, it is found that contrary to the
statement made in paragraph-3, the petitioner has criminal
antecedent, the present order shall become infructuous.
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the
receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25862 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No. II,
Nawada in connection with Rajaoli P.S. Case No. 118 of 2026
subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document 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 fortnight for six months to mark his
attendance and after the end of the period, the certificate shall be
submitted before the Trial Court failing which steps shall be
taken for the cancellation of the 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25862 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
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)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…