Patna High Court
Chandan Sah @ chandan kumar sahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail may be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act even though Section 76(2) bars it, provided the FIR does not establish an offence against the applicants.
Summary
The petitioners, Chandan Sah and Chotu Kumar, were implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for the alleged seizure of 443.33 litres of foreign liquor from two vehicles. They contended that they neither owned the vehicles nor had the liquor in their conscious possession, and sought anticipatory bail. Relying on the Full Bench judgment in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, the court examined whether Section 76(2) of the Act bars anticipatory bail when no offence is made out on the FIR. The court held that anticipatory bail could be granted despite the statutory bar, given the lack of direct possession and ownership. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail with a bail bond of Rs 10,000 each, two sureties, and several conditions, including a payment of Rs 7,500 each to the District Legal Services Authority for a music‑system installation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is permissible under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioners' lack of ownership and conscious possession of the seized liquor justifies granting anticipatory bail.
- Whether the condition of payment to the District Legal Services Authority is a valid condition of bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30
- Section 76(2)
- foreign liquor seizure
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27839 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2026 Thana- R S P.S. District- Araria
======================================================
1. Chandan Sah @ chandan kumar sah Son of Dulachand Sah @ Dularchand
sah R/O Village- Manikbara, Ward No. 11, P.S.- Simraha, District- Araria
2. Chotu Kumar Son of Nathan Sah @ Naththan Sah R/O Village- Manikbara,
Ward No. 11, P.S.- Simraha, District- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Manisha Khushi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nityanand, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 29-04-2026 Heard Ms. Manisha Khushi, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP representing the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with R.S. P.S. Case No. 16 of 2026 for the offence
under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
lodged on 27.01.2026 by the informant, Ankur.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that two four wheeler vehicle, a Fortuner and Maruti Suzuki Car
were intercepted and while some managed to escape, other
apprehended. They gave the name of these petitioners and from
the two vehicles, there is recovery/seizure of 443.330 liter
foreign liquor. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that only
because of criminal antecedent, they got implicated, nothing has
been recovered from their conscious possession nor they own
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27839 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
2/4
the vehicle. Further, if granted relief, they shall not indulge in
any criminal activity and if their name comes in any other case,
the State may take steps for cancellation of bail bond. Last
submission is that without accepting the allegation or outcome
of the petition the petitioner intends to pay Rs.7,500/- each
(totaling Rs.15,000/-) by Demand Draft issued by the local
branch of the State Bank of India/any Nationalized Bank to the
District Legal Services Authority, Araria for the installation of
music system in the Civil Court, Araria.
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
those apprehended named him.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27839 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
3/4
also that the petitioner do not own the vehicle, nor anything
recovered from their conscious possession, in that background,
this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of
anticipatory bail with conditions subject to payment of
Rs.7,500/- each (totaling Rs.15,000/-) by Demand Draft issued
by the local branch of the State Bank of India/any Nationalized
Bank to the District Legal Services Authority, Araria for the
installation of music system in the Civil Court, Araria at the
time of execution of bail bond.
8. 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/-
(Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise-1, Araria
in connection with R.S. P.S. Case No. 16 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;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27839 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
4/4
(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
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.
9. Let a copy of the order be sent to the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Araria for perusal and
needful.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…