Patna High Court
Vishal @ Vishal KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted as no offence under Section 30(a) was made out and the petitioner had no possession, notwithstanding the bar under Section 76(2).
Summary
The petitioner, Vishal Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after an FIR was lodged for the alleged seizure of 18,100 litres of country-made liquor. He contended that no liquor was found in his possession, he had no prior criminal record, and the accusation stemmed from local enmity. Relying on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which allows anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) when no offence is established, the court examined the merits. The State opposed, citing the raid based on secret information. The court, noting the absence of any seizure from the petitioner and the precedent, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and other safeguards.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2) when no offence is made out?
- Does the lack of seizure from the petitioner’s possession and absence of criminal antecedent justify granting anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 76(2)
- Section 438
- seizure of liquor
- criminal antecedent
- enquiry
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31256 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2026 Thana- KARAKAT District- Rohtas
======================================================
Vishal @ Vishal Kumar Son of Kameshwar Paswan Resident Of Village Nad,
P.S.- Karakat, District- Rohtas (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sarfraz Ahmad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 07-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Karakat P.S. Case No. 120 of 2026 instituted under
Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act lodged on
13.03.2026 by the informant, Shyam Kishore.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on secret information about movement of liquor, the place
was raided and there is recovery/seizure of 18.100 liters of
country made liquor from the field. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession nor
he has criminal antecedent, only due to enmity, the locals have
named him.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31256 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
2/4
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, Mr. Bharat Bhushan opposes the
prayer submitting that on secret information about the liquor, the
place was raided.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that nothing has been recovered from his conscious
possession or from the house, in that background, this Court is
inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event
of his arrest or surrender before the concerned court 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
the like amount each in connection with Karakat P.S. Case No.
120 of 2026 to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31256 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
3/4
Judge, Excise Court No.I, Rohtas at Sasaram subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as
also the other conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/Voter ID/Pan Card
etc.) 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 day for one month and later every fortnight
for next six months to mark his attendance and at the end of the
period a certificate be submitted before the Trial Court failing
which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation
of bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31256 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
4/4
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)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.