Patna High Court
Raghu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence, notwithstanding Section 76(2).
Summary
The petitioner, Raghu Yadav, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under sections 30(a), (c) and (d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act alleging his involvement in the illegal manufacture of mahua liquor. The prosecution’s case was based on a tip from an informant and a raid that seized liquor and equipment, but no material was found in the petitioner’s conscious possession. The petitioner argued that he has no criminal antecedent and that the allegations do not constitute an offence under the Act, relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the secret‑information raid. The Court, applying the precedent, held that anticipatory bail can be granted despite the bar in Section 76(2) when the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence. Accordingly, the Court ordered anticipatory bail with a set of stringent conditions and a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties. The order remains subject to revocation if the petitioner is found to have a criminal antecedent or violates any condition.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2)?
- Do the facts alleged in the FIR constitute an offence under sections 30(a), (c) and (d) of the Act?
- Is the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedent sufficient ground for granting anticipatory bail?
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- section 30
- section 76(2)
- criminal antecedent
- liquor prohibition
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27863 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2026 Thana- Bodhibigaha District- Gaya
======================================================
Raghu Yadav son of Late Ram Lagan Yadav Resident of village -Khardag PS
-Bodhi Bigha District -Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Nikhil, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 29-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Bodhibigha (Bodhi Biha) P.S. Case No. 15 of
2026 for the offence under sections 30(a)(c)(d) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act lodged on 20.02.2026 by the
informant, Sanjay Kumar Das.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on secret information of preparation of liquor, the place was
raided and there 10 liters of country made mahua liquor
alongwith a concealed container having 25 liters of liquor
beside raw materials and equipment were seized and the locals
gave the name of the present petitioner. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27863 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
2/4
nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession rather
from an open place, he do not have criminal antecedent but has
been implicated in the present matter.
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 on
secret information, the place was raided.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that the petitioner do not have criminal antecedent, 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27863 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
3/4
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/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No. 3,
Gaya in connection with Bodhibigha (Bodhi Biha) P.S. Case No.
15 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;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27863 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
4/4
(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.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…