Patna High Court
Saurabh Suman @ Saurav Suman @ Saurav KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Saurabh Suman, the owner of a truck, was implicated in a case involving the seizure of 1,200.96 litres of illicit liquor under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He argued that the liquor was recovered from the vehicle, not from his conscious possession, and that the seizure violated mandatory procedures under Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 103 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The State opposed anticipatory bail, invoking Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and several conditions including cooperation with the trial and no tampering of evidence. The bail order also directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent without delaying the acceptance of the bond.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the alleged contravention involves seizure of liquor not in the petitioner's conscious possession.
- Whether Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act bars anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
- Whether procedural lapses in seizure under Section 100 Cr.P.C. and Section 103 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita affect bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 103, 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 100, 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- seizure procedure
- criminal procedure
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- bail conditions
- procedural lapse
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28468 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2026 Thana- Bahera District- Gaya
======================================================
Saurabh Suman @ Saurav Suman @ Saurav Kumar S/o Suresh Prasad
Resident of Village/ Mohalla - New Area, Maharana Pratap Nagar, P.S.-
Aurangabad Town, District- Aurangabad, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 Heard Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Bahera P.S. Case No. 29/2026, F.I.R. dated
12.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of
the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Recovery is of 1200.96 liters of illicit Indian
made foreign liquor from the truck.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has clean antecedent and has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The petitioner has no concern at
all with the alleged recovery of liquor. He further submits that it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28468 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/4
appears from the F.I.R. as well as seizure list that nothing has
been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner
rather the recovery has been made from the vehicle in question
and the petitioner has been made accused in the present case
merely on the basis that he is the owner of the vehicle in
question. There is non-compliance with mandatory procedure
prescribed for recovery under Section 100 of Cr.P.C / Section
103 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. No case, whatsoever,
would be made out against the petitioner under the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act.
5. The 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
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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28468 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/4
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been
recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, 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 Exclusive
Special Judge, Excise-5, Gaya in connection with Bahera P.S.
Case No. 29/2026, 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:-
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28468 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
4/4
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)
atul/-
U T
Checking your session…