Patna High Court
MANISH KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail may be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite Section 76(2) when the allegations do not amount to an offence, and the petitioner’s lack of ownership and clean record justify such relief.
Summary
Manish Kumar sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, where 21.60 litres of foreign liquor were seized after a police encounter. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was named by a co‑accused, Ranbir Kumar, who was forced to implicate him. The petitioner contended he owned neither the motorcycles involved nor the seized liquor and that his name was obtained under duress. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, the court examined whether bail could be granted despite the bar in Section 76(2) of the Act. The court concluded that, since no offence could be established against the petitioner and he had no criminal antecedents, anticipatory bail should be granted with strict conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail if arrested within four weeks, subject to a bond and several compliance conditions.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2) when the allegations do not constitute an offence?
- Is the petitioner liable for the offence under section 30(a) given his denial of ownership and claim of coercion in naming him?
- Are the conditions imposed for anticipatory bail appropriate and lawful?
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- section 30(a)
- section 76(2)
- seizure of liquor
- false implication
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29591 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2026 Thana- SIKRAUL District- Buxar
======================================================
MANISH KUMAR S/o Lakshman Tato @ Lakshman Prasad @ Mukhiya R/o
vill - Kharvaniya, P.S.- Sikraul, Distt.- Buxar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Rina Sinha, 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 Sikraul P.S. Case No. 33 of 2026 for the
offence under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act lodged on 09.03.2026 by the informant, Ramesh Paswan.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that when the Police tried to intercept two motorcycles, one met
with accident. As the accused wanted to escape, one of them
Ranbir Kumar was arrested and he gave the names which
included this petitioner. On search, 21.60 liter foreign liquor
recovered/seized. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29591 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/4
neither he owns the two motorcycles nor anything recovered
from his conscious possession but Ranbir Kumar was forced by
the Police to name him.
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.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that the petitioner do not own the vehicle nor he has
criminal antecedent, in that background, this Court is inclined to
extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29591 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/4
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No.2,
Buxar in connection with Sikraul P.S. Case No. 33 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;
(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;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29591 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
4/4
(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.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…