Patna High Court
Raju MahtoversusThe 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 no offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act is made out, following the precedent of Ram Vinay Yadav vs State of Bihar.
Summary
The petitioner, Raju Mahto, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged possession of 90 litres of country‑made liquor seized near Pujaha bridge. The prosecution’s FIR, based on information from a chowkidar, named the petitioner as one of the persons who escaped. The petitioner argued he has no criminal antecedent, no liquor was found in his possession, and that the allegation is motivated by personal enmity. Relying on the Patna High Court Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav vs State of Bihar, which allows anticipatory bail despite the bar under Section 76(2) when no offence is made out, the court examined the merits. Finding no prior record and no concrete evidence linking the petitioner to the offence, the court granted anticipatory bail with detailed conditions, reserving the right to cancel if any adverse facts emerge.
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 is likely to be implicated in the alleged offence of illegal liquor possession.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedent warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 76(2)
- criminal antecedent
- liquor seizure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27864 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2026 Thana- SRINAGAR District- West Champaran
======================================================
Raju Mahto S/o Kari Mahto R/o - Marchaiya, PS - Srinagar, District - West
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Shaheen Begum, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 29-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Srinagar P.S. Case No. 37 of 2026 for the
offence under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act lodged on 27.02.2026 by the informant, Mahesh Kumar
Singh.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that, on secret information, the team alongwith ‘mahal
chowkidar’ reached near Pujaha bridge and there is
recovery/seizure of altogether 90 liters country-made liquor. The
chowkidar named the persons who escaped, petitioner included.
This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only
because of enmity with the chowkidar, he has been named, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27864 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
2/4
petitioner do not have any criminal antecedent and nothing has
been recovered from his conscious possession.
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 the
chowkidar had named him.
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 any 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.
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27864 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
3/4
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 Judge, Excise Court –
II, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Srinagar P.S.
Case No. 37 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27864 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
4/4
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…