Patna High Court
Ajay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is appropriate where the accused is not in conscious possession of the seized liquor and similar co‑accused have been granted bail, despite the provisions of Section 76(2).
Summary
The petitioner, Ajay Kumar, was implicated in a case concerning the seizure of 632.880 litres of foreign liquor under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2016. He contended that he was not named in the FIR, had no conscious possession of the liquor, and had sold the vehicle in which the liquor was found prior to the incident. The prosecution opposed anticipatory bail, invoking Section 76(2) of the same Act, arguing that pre‑arrest bail should not be granted. Relying on the precedent of Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar (2019) and noting that co‑accused persons had been granted anticipatory bail, the Court held that the petitioner’s circumstances warranted bail. Consequently, the Court ordered anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and specific conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a vehicle owner not in possession of seized liquor under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act.
- Whether Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the prior sale of the vehicle negates liability for the offences alleged in the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- prohibition and excise law
- seizure of liquor
- vehicle ownership
- false implication
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27180 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2025 Thana- KAMTAUL District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Ajay Kumar Son of Shri Vishwanath Ray Resident of At- Mahua Singh Ray,
Ward No. 01, P.S.- Mahua, District - Vaishali, Bihar 844122
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 Heard Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Kamtaul P.S. Case No. 100 of 2025, F.I.R dated
07.05.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section
30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2016.
3. Recovery is of 632.880 liters of Indian made
Foreign liquor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case and he is not named in the FIR.
He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is
false and fabricated. He further submits that it appears from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27180 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/4
F.I.R as well as seizure list that nothing has been recovered from
the conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery
has been made from the pick-up van in question and the
petitioner has been made accused in this case merely on the
basis that he is the registered owner of the vehicle in question.
He next submits that the petitioner has sold his vehicle to one
Uttam Kumar on 30.10.2024 itself (Annexure-2) and similarly
situated co-accused person, namely, Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay @
Sanjay Thakur has been granted the privilege of anticipatory
bail by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2025 in Cr. Misc.
No.44793 of 2025 and another co-accused person, namely, Bittu
thakur @ Bikash Thakur has been granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench this Court vide order
dated 12.01.2026 in Cr. Misc. No.91031 of 2025. No case,
whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner under the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of
the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the pre-
arrest bail would not be maintainable.
6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27180 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/4
Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar
reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid
down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on
behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant
of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of
counsel for the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts that nothing has
been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and
he has been made accused in this case merely on the basis that
he is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and
similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted the
privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court or co-ordinate Bench
of this Court, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of
thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Special Judge, 1st Excise Act, Darbhanga in
connection with Kamtaul P.S. Case No. 100 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27180 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
4/4
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…