Patna High Court
Jay Mangal SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to monetary contribution and specified conditions.
Summary
Jay Mangal Singh, the owner of a pick‑up van, was implicated in an excise case (Case No. 874 of 2025) for the alleged seizure of 400 litres of spirit, attracting charges under sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018. He applied for anticipatory bail, contending that he had no knowledge of the illegal activity as the vehicle was driven by his driver and that he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed, arguing that ownership alone imposes liability. Relying on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) if no offence is made out, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs 10,000 contribution to the District Legal Services Authority and several compliance conditions. The order also stipulated bail bond and surety requirements under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues considered
- Whether the owner of a vehicle can be granted anticipatory bail under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act despite the bar in Section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of knowledge and clean criminal record justify anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 — s. 30(a), 32(3), 76(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- vehicle ownership liability
- Section 76(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31278 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-874 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Jay Mangal Singh son of Basudeo Singh Resident of village- Jarmakhap, Ps-
Jamhore, Dist- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs.Mukul Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 07-05-2026 Heard Mrs.Mukul Kumari, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Excise P.S. Case No. 874 of 2025, for the offence under
section 30(a), 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Amendment Act 2018 lodged on 19.08.2025 by the informant,
Chandra Bhushan Prasad.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police intercepted
a Pick Up Van and there is recovery/seizure 400 liters of spirit.
This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only
because he is the owner, got implicated, actually it was being
driven by the driver and the petitioner had no knowledge about
it. He do not have criminal antecedent. Last submission is that
irrespective of the outcome of the present case and/or accepting
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31278 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
2/4
the allegation, the petitioner intends to contribute Rs.10,000/- to
the District Legal Services Authority, Aurangabad for putting up
flower pots in the Civil Court Campus of Aurangabad judgeship
through Demand Draft issued by the local State Bank of India
branch/Any Nationalized Bank and the receipt of the
expenditure shall be submitted to the trial Court by the DLSA,
Aurangabad.
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 submitting that
being the owner, he cannot exonerate himself from the
responsibility.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, in that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31278 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
3/4
background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege
of anticipatory bail subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- to the
District Legal Services Authority, Aurangabad for putting up
flower pots in the Civil Court Campus of Aurangabad judgeship
through Demand Draft issued by the local State Bank of India
branch/Any Nationalized Bank and the receipt of the
expenditure shall be submitted to the trial Court by the DLSA,
Aurangabad.
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 Excise P.S. Case No.
874 of 2025 to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Excise
-II, Aurangabad 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31278 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
4/4
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,
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.