Patna High Court
Mukti Mahto @ Mukti KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted as the allegations did not constitute a cognizable offence and the petitioner had no prior criminal record.
Summary
Mukti Mahto sought anticipatory bail after police seized 27 litres of Nepali country-made liquor from an open place, alleging offences under sections 274/275 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The petitioner claimed no prior criminal record and argued that the seizure did not constitute a cognizable offence. The State opposed, citing the identification by a chowkidar. Relying on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which permits anticipatory bail despite Section 76(2) if no offence is established, the court granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions, including bond, sureties, regular appearances, and non‑interference with witnesses. The order directs release on bail within four weeks upon compliance.
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).
- Whether the facts alleged in the FIR constitute an offence under sections 274/275 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedent and the open‑place seizure justify granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 274, 275
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- prohibition law
- illegal liquor
- seizure
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30583 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-270 Year-2025 Thana- DARPA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Mukti Mahto @ Mukti Kumar S/O Kishori Mahto @ Ramekbal Mahto R/O
Village- Raghunathpur, P.S- Chhauradano,Dist- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Priyanka Kumari, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 18-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Darpa P.S. Case No. 270 of 2025 for the offence
under sections 274/275 of BNS and 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police on secret
information of petitioner selling country made liquor, went to the
place and there is recovery/ seizure of 27 liter Nepali liquor kept
under the sack near the Pipra Bajrang Chowk. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they
do not have criminal antecedent and the liquor has been recovered
from an open place.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30583 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
2/3
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
Chowkidar has named him.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that recovery/seizure is from an open place and he do not
have 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 satisfaction
of learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No. 01 in connection
with Darpa P.S. Case No. 270 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;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30583 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
3/3
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall be appearing before the Police
Station as and when required for co-operating 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;
(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)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.