Patna High Court
Rakesh Manjhi @ Rakesh kumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail as the Full Bench precedent precludes such relief in similar cases.
Summary
The petitioner, Rakesh Manjhi, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after 3 litres of country-made liquor were recovered from his house. The prosecution alleged that the liquor was found at the petitioner's residence, justifying pre‑arrest detention. The petitioner contended he had no conscious possession of the liquor and was falsely implicated, arguing there was no incriminating material linking him to the recovery. The State opposed the bail, relying on a Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which denied anticipatory bail in similar circumstances. The Court, applying the precedent, held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail and consequently rejected the bail petition.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar to the present anticipatory bail petition?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the circumstances of liquor recovery from his residence?
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- section 30(a)
- liquor seizure
- Full Bench precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30102 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2026 Thana- ALIPUR District- Gaya
======================================================
Rakesh Manjhi @ Rakesh kumar son of Umesh Manjhi Resident of Village -
Gashraur, Ps- Alipur, Dist- Gayaji
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 11-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
State .
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for
the offence punishable under section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Prosecution case is that 3 liters of country made
liquor was recovered from the house of this petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been
implicated in this case. No incriminating material has been
recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and he
is no way connected with the aforesaid recovery.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the
recovery has been made from the house of the petitioner. He
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30102 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026
2/2
further submits that petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of
anticipatory bail in view of Full Bench decision of this Court
rendered in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. The State of Bihar
reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089 (F.B.).
6. Considering the aforesaid decision of this Court,
this pre-arrest bail petition is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Koushik/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.