Patna High Court
Jitendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions, holding that the lack of conscious possession and the cited precedent justify relief despite the statutory bar.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case alleging seizure of 233.265 litres of foreign liquor under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The prosecution’s case was based on a secret raid and the testimony of a chowkidar, but no liquor was found in the petitioner’s conscious possession. The petitioner argued that the allegation did not constitute an offence and relied on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar in section 76(2) if no offence is made out. The court, considering the lack of possession and the precedent, granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs 5,000 contribution to the District Legal Services Authority and several bail conditions. The order also directed the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and to comply with reporting and conduct requirements.
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 absence of liquor in the petitioner’s conscious possession negates the existence of an offence under section 30(a).
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail given his criminal antecedent.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- section 30(a)
- section 76(2)
- conscious possession
- seizure of foreign liquor
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29499 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2026 Thana- JANDAHA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Jitendra Kumar S/o- Raj Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Arniya Math ward
No- 14 Police Station- Jandaha, Dist- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Jandaha P.S. Case No. 105 of 2026 for the
offence under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police on secret
information, raided the ‘bathan’ of the petitioner and there is
recovery/seizure of 233.265 liters of foreign liquor. The
‘chowkidar’ named him which led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only
because of criminal antecedent, the chowkidar has implicated
him and nothing has been recovered from his conscious
possession. The last submission is that without accepting the
allegation and/or the outcome of the present case, the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29499 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/4
intends to contribute Rs. 5,000/- to the District Legal Services
Authority, Vaishali for putting up flower pots in the Civil Court
Campus of Vaishali Judgeship through Demand Draft issued by
the local branch of the State Bank of India.
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 he
has criminal antecedent.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that nothing has been recovered from his conscious
possession, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend
him the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions subject to
payment of Rs. 5,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority,
Vaishali for putting up flower pots in the Civil Court Campus of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29499 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/4
Vaishali Judgeship through Demand Draft issued by the local
branch of the State Bank of India and the receipt of the
expenditure shall be submitted to the trial Court by the DLSA,
Vaishali.
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) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No. 1-
cum-District and Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur
in connection with Jandaha P.S. Case No. 105 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;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29499 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
4/4
(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. A copy of the order be sent to the Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Vaishali for his/her perusal and needful.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.