Patna High Court
Sohit Kumar Yadav @ Sohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail in the present case.
Summary
The petitioner, Sohit Kumar Yadav, applied for bail in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, where 324 litres of Nepali liquor were seized from three bikes. The petitioner contended that the seized liquor was not in his possession, asserting that the recovery was made from co‑accused Om Prakash Yadav, who had already been granted bail. He also argued that the police failed to comply with Section 105 of the BNSS during the seizure and highlighted his clean criminal record and custody since 26‑03‑2026. The State opposed the bail, but the Court, after considering the procedural lapse and the petitioner’s lack of antecedents, ordered that bail be granted on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties. The order directs the petitioner to comply with the bail conditions before the Special Exclusive Excise Court‑II, Supaul.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the alleged non‑compliance with Section 105 of the BNSS during seizure warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the prior grant of bail to co‑accused Om Prakash Yadav influences the petitioner's bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- BNSS — s. 105
Subjects
- bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- seizure procedure
- Section 105
- criminal antecedent
- surety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31574 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-224 Year-2025 Thana- NIRMALI District- Supaul
======================================================
Sohit Kumar Yadav @ Sohit Kumar S/O Laxmi Narayan Yadav R/O Vill.-
Hariraha, P.S.- Andhramath, Dist.- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 13-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Nirmali P.S. Case No.224 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that from
three bikes altogether 324 liters of Nepali country made liquor
was recovered.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that nothing has been recovered from
the possession of this petitioner. Recovery, if any, has been
made from the possession of Om Prakash Yada. Om Prakash has
named this petitioner. It has further been submitted that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31574 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
2/2
witnesses of the seizure list are police personnel and police have
not complied Section 105 of the BNSS while making seizure. It
has further been submitted that the petitioner is having no
criminal antecedent and he is in judicial custody since
26.03.2026. It has further been submitted that Om Prakash
Yadav has been granted bail by the learned Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 5685 of 2026.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned
Special Exclusive Excise Court-II, Supaul, in connection with
Nirmali P.S. Case No.224 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.