Patna High Court
AMIT KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as the allegations do not constitute an offence under the Act and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Summary
Amit Kumar sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after an FIR alleged seizure of 80 litres of country‑made liquor from a godown. He contended that the liquor was recovered from an open place, not from his possession, and that he has no criminal antecedent. Relying on the Full Bench 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 petitioner argued for bail. The court, noting the lack of criminal antecedent and the cited precedent, granted anticipatory bail with a set of conditions, reserving the right to cancel the bail if facts change. The order directs the petitioner to furnish a bail bond and comply with attendance and conduct conditions.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2)?
- Do the allegations in the FIR constitute an offence under section 30(a) of the Act against the petitioner?
- Does the petitioner have any criminal antecedent that would preclude anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- section 30(a)
- section 76(2)
- criminal antecedent
- seizure of liquor
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31297 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2026 Thana- AKHODHIGOLA District- Rohtas
======================================================
AMIT KUMAR S/O UPENDRA SINGH R/o vill - Vasantpur, P.S.-
Akorigola, Distt.- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 07-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Akorigola P.S. Case No. 88 of 2026 for the
offence under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on secret information, the place was raided and from the
godown, where the food grains are kept, there is
recovery/seizure of 80 liters country made liquor. This led to the
FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a
perusal of the FIR would show that it has been recovered from
an open place and not from his conscious possession and he do
not have criminal antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31297 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
2/4
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.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that he do not have any criminal antecedent, in that
background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of
anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. If, however, it is found that contrary to the
statement made in paragraph-3, the petitioner has criminal
antecedent, the present order shall become infructuous.
9. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31297 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
3/4
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No. 1,
Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Akorigola P.S. Case No.
88 of 2026 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;
(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 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;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31297 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
4/4
(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)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.