Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Md. AmzadversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, despite the statutory restriction under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

Summary

Md. Amzad was implicated in an excise case for the alleged possession of 668.880 litres of illicit foreign liquor, based solely on his ownership of the vehicle from which the liquor was seized. He applied for anticipatory bail, asserting a clean criminal record and that no liquor was found in his conscious possession. The prosecution opposed the bail, invoking Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act which restricts pre‑arrest bail in such offences. The Patna High Court, relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, held that anticipatory bail could be granted despite the statutory provision, subject to strict conditions. Accordingly, the court ordered that the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and compliance with conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a person accused under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act notwithstanding Section 76(2) of that Act.
  • Whether ownership of a vehicle from which illicit liquor is seized suffices to constitute possession for the purpose of bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • illicit liquor
  • Section 438 CrPC
  • vehicle ownership
  • false implication

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32113 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-343 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Amzad S/O Md. Abdulla @ Md. Abdul R/O Village- Daudpur, P.S.- Paru,
                 Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

                                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Priyesh Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   01-07-2026                    Heard Mr. Priyesh Kumar, learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Ms. Pushpa Sinha, learned Additional Public

                   Prosecutor for the State.

                                   2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Excise P.S. Case No. 343 of 2026, F.I.R dated

                   19.02.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Section

                   30(a) and 32(3) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                   3. Recovery is of 668.880 liters of illicit foreign

                   liquor.

                                   4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner has clean antecedent and has falsely been

                   implicated in the present case. He further submits that the

                   allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated. He

                   further submits that it appears from the F.I.R as well as seizure
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32113 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                            2/4




          list that nothing has been recovered from the conscious

          possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made

          from vehicle in question and the petitioner is made accused

          merely on the basis that he is the owner of the said vehicle. He

          further submits that one co-accused Raushan Kumar was

          arrested from the place of occurrence. No case, whatsoever,

          would be made out against the petitioner under the Bihar

          Prohibition and Excise Act.

                          5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

          vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

          petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of

          the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the

          pre-arrest bail would not be maintainable.

                          6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full

          Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar

          reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid

          down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on

          behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant

          of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of

          counsel for the petitioner.

                          7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been

          recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32113 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                            3/4




          petitioner has clean antecedent and the petitioner is made

          accused merely on the basis that he is the owner of the vehicle

          in question, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his

          arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of

          thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on

          bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)

          with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

          the learned Exclusive Special Judge Excise-II, Muzaffarpur in

          connection with Excise P.S. Case No. 343 of 2026, subject to

          the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of

          Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:-

                          i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be

          properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court

          and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and

          on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

          reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

                          ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

          witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

          for cancellation of bail.

                       iii. And further condition that the court below shall

          verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at

          any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32113 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                                        4/4




                      criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

                      cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the

                      acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

                      shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of

                      verification.



                                             (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.