Patna High Court
Ramvinod SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner as no offence is made out against him and he has no criminal antecedent, subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
Ramvinod Sah, the owner of a tractor, feared arrest in a case (Hathauri PS Case No. 219 of 2025) under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after police seized 1,394.28 litres of foreign liquor from the vehicle. He argued that he was not involved in the alleged offence, as his son and a friend were driving the tractor, and offered to contribute Rs.15,000 to the District Legal Services Authority for a civic project. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar in section 76(2) when no offence is made out, the court examined the petition. The court found no criminal antecedent against the petitioner and, considering the precedent, granted anticipatory bail with several conditions, including payment to the DLSA and regular appearances before police and court. The order also stipulated that it would become null if a criminal antecedent were discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the owner of a vehicle implicated in a seizure under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of direct involvement and clean criminal record justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
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)
- vehicle ownership
- seizure of liquor
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29559 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-219 Year-2025 Thana- HATHAURI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Ramvinod Sah S/O Sukdeo Sah R/O Mohalla- Berai, P.S.- Hathauri, District-
Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, 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 Hathauri P.S. Case No. 219 of 2025 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, intercepted a tractor and there is recovery/seizure
of 1394.28 liters of foreign liquor. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only
because he owns the vehicle, implicated. Actually, the son and
his friend have been made accused as they were driving the
tractor. The last submission is that without accepting the
allegation and/or the outcome of the present case, the petitioner
intends to contribute Rs. 15,000/- to the District Legal Services
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29559 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/4
Authority, Muzaffarpur for putting up flower pots in the Civil
Court Campus of Muzaffarpur 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, Mr. Bharat Bhushan opposes the
prayer submitting that he owns the vehicle.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that Raja Sah (son) also stands implicated and he do not
have any criminal antecedent, in that background, this Court is
inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail with
conditions subject to payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the District
Legal Services Authority, Muzaffarpur for putting up flower
pots in the Civil Court Campus of Muzaffarpur Judgeship
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29559 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/4
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, Muzaffarpur.
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
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 Court Excise – III,
Muzaffarpur in connection with Hathauri P.S. Case No. 219 of
2025 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29559 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
4/4
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
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.
10. A copy of the order be sent to the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur 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.