Patna High Court
VISHNU KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
Petitioner 1 was granted pre‑arrest bail; petitioner 2 was denied pre‑arrest bail.
Summary
Vishnu Kumar and Golu Kumar applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged recovery of 57.855 litres of illicit liquor from an e‑rickshaw. The petitioners claimed they were falsely implicated and had no involvement with the seized liquor or the vehicle. The State opposed the bail. The Court, noting that petitioner 1 was named in the FIR merely on suspicion, granted him pre‑arrest bail subject to a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties and compliance with Section 482(2) of the BNSS, while refusing bail to petitioner 2 on the ground of his alleged ownership of the e‑rickshaw. The District Court was directed to verify petitioner 1’s criminal antecedents, and the bail application was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether petitioner 1 is entitled to pre‑arrest bail despite being named in the FIR on the basis of suspicion.
- Whether petitioner 2 should be granted pre‑arrest bail given the alleged ownership of the seized e‑rickshaw.
- Whether Section 482(2) of the BNSS applies as a condition to the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- illicit liquor
- suspicion
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 482(2)
- BNSS
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30233 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-154 Year-2026 Thana- SULTANGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
1. Vishnu Kumar, S/o Ishwari Mahto
2. Golu Kumar, S/o Naresh Mahto
Both are R/o Balu Ghat, P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amritanshu Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 13-05-2026 Heard Mr. Amritanshu Raj, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Lakshmi Kant
Sharma, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 154 of 2026 registered for the
offence punishable under Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act as amended up-to-date.
3. Allegation is of recovery of 57.855 litres of illicit
liquor from an e-rikshaw bearing Registration No.
BR015V5984.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely
implicated in the present case. Petitioners have no concern with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30233 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
the alleged seized liquor or with the e-rikshaw, from which the
alleged illicit liquor was recovered, nor they are involved in
trade of liquor in any manner. General and omnibus allegation
has been levelled against the petitioners. Name of the petitioners
surfaced merely on the basis of suspicion. On these grounds,
petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, in view of the fact that petitioner no. 1
has been named in the FIR on the basis of suspicion, the
petitioner no. 1, above named, is directed to be released on pre-
arrest bail, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the
learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today,
on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned District Court where the case is pending, in
connection with Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 154 of 2026, subject
to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
7. So far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, his
complicity in the alleged offence cannot be denied in view of
the complex statement made in paragraphs no. 12 and 13 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30233 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
bail application, in which, the petitioner has not disclosed that
the e-rikshaw, which was seized, belongs to him, accordingly, I
am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner no. 2 on pre-arrest bail.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner no. 1 as stated in
paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is
pending against the petitioner no. 1 as what has been stated
in paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.
9. The present bail application is disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.