Patna High Court

Ramakant SahaniversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 29 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of the petitioner's antecedents and compliance with bail conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Ramakant Sahani, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of 70 litres of liquor from a bush adjacent to his house. He argued he has a clean antecedent, the liquor was not in his possession, and the complaint originated from a hostile watchman who failed to inform police earlier. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his antecedents. If any prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if he is found clean, the bail will be confirmed forthwith.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
Whether the circumstances of the alleged recovery and the petitioner's antecedents justify the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
liquor seizure
clean antecedent
Section 482 CPC
bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28349 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2026 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East
                                                        Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Ramakant Sahani S/o- Vakil Sahani @ Wakil Sahni R/v- Tikuliya Dhab Tola
                 Po- Laxmipur Tikuliya Ps- Muffasil Motihari Muffasil Dist- East Champaran

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Mohd Rustam Hussain
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Kalyan Shankar
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   29-04-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a) and

                   41(1) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 70 litres of liquor from a bush behind the house of

                   petitioner. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested

                   from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious

                   possession and even alleged recovery is from a place which

                   does not belong to the petitioner but then is adjacent to his

                   house and he came to be implicated at the instance of chowkidar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28349 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
                                            2/3




          with whom he is on an inimical term. It is also submitted that if

          chowkidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the

          occurrence then why he did not inform the police prior to

          institution of the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the

          case of the prosecution.

                       4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                       5. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the

          event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks

          from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on

          furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) with

          two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

          learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in

          connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No.05/2026, subject to the

          conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

                       6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter

          shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the

          event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one

          case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had

          concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the

          provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28349 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
                                                         3/3




                       on verification it is found that petitioner is a person with clean

                       antecedent, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order

                       shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                 (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-

U        T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…