Patna High Court
Somar Hembram @ Somara HembramversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as the petitioners have no criminal antecedent, no conscious possession of the seized liquor, and the allegations do not constitute an offence under the Act.
Summary
The petitioners, seven residents of Gayghat village, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (Kawakol PS Case No. 92 of 2026) under sections 30(a) and 30(d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after police seized 100 litres of country-made liquor and a large quantity of mahua solution. They argued that none of them had any criminal antecedent, no liquor was found in their conscious possession, and therefore no offence was made out against them. Relying on the Patna High Court Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar (2019) which allows anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) when the allegations do not constitute an offence, they requested bail. The State opposed, contending that the petitioners' names appeared in the FIR. The Court, after considering the submissions and the precedent, granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and several conditions regarding appearance before police and courts, non‑tampering with evidence, and abstaining from further offences.
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) of the Act.
- Whether the petitioners can be said to have committed an offence under sections 30(a) and 30(d) of the Act given the facts of the FIR.
- Whether the conditions imposed for bail are appropriate and sufficient.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- section 30
- section 76(2)
- criminal antecedent
- seizure of liquor
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29570 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2026 Thana- KAUWAKOL District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Somar Hembram @ Somara Hembram S/o Hazu Hembram R/o vill -
Gayghat, P.S.- Kawakol, Distt.- Nawada
2. Barku Hembram @ Barku Soren S/o Chunu Hembram R/o vill - Gayghat,
P.S.- Kawakol, Distt.- Nawada
3. Rahul Soren S/o Mangar Soren R/o vill - Gayghat, P.S.- Kawakol, Distt.-
Nawada
4. Sanjay Marandi S/o Chuhu Marandi R/o vill - Gayghat, P.S.- Kawakol,
Distt.- Nawada
5. Ravi Marandi @ Ravi @ Nayake Marandi S/o Chuhu Marandi R/o vill -
Gayghat, P.S.- Kawakol, Distt.- Nawada
6. Sanjay Marandi @ Silash Marandi S/o Chuhu Marandi R/o vill - Gayghat,
P.S.- Kawakol, Distt.- Nawada
7. Larka Marandi @ Manjhlu Marandi S/o Chuhu Marandi R/o vill - Gayghat,
P.S.- Kawakol, Distt.- Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Parashuram Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Renuka Ratnakar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Kawakol P.S. Case No. 92 of 2026 for the
offence under sections 30(a) and 30(d) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act lodged on 16.02.2026 by the informant, Rinku
Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police on secret
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29570 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/4
information about selling of the liquor, raided the place and
beside half prepared mahua solution (6000 liter), 100 liters
country made liquor recovered/seized. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
everyone on the said place stands implicated as accused, none
have criminal antecedent, there is no recovery from their
conscious possession.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners 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
name of the petitioners cropped up.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that they do not have criminal antecedent, nothing
recovered from their conscious possession, in that background,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29570 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/4
this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory
bail with conditions.
8. Let the petitioners 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) each with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Extra Special Excise Judge-II, Nawada
in connection with Kawakol P.S. Case No. 92 of 2026 subject to
the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioners who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners shall be appearing before the Police
Station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioners 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 petitioners 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29570 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
4/4
submitted before the Trial Court failing which steps shall be
taken for the cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioners 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 petitioners 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)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.