Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Santosh Mahto @ Santosh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as the seizure was not from the accused's possession, he has a clean antecedent, and suspicion alone does not justify denial of bail.

Summary

Santosh Mahto was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for the alleged possession of 85 litres of country-made liquor seized from the place of occurrence, not from his conscious possession. He applied for anticipatory bail, asserting a clean antecedent and that the allegations were fabricated and based solely on suspicion. The State opposed the bail, invoking Section 76(2) of the Act which bars pre‑arrest bail. The Court, referring to the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, held that the lack of possession, clean record, and the purely suspicious basis of the accusation warranted the grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and further safeguards.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act when the seized liquor was not found in the accused's possession.
  • Whether Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
  • Whether mere suspicion without material evidence is sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • Section 30
  • Section 76
  • CrPC Section 438
  • seizure without possession
  • suspicion
  • clean antecedent

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32158 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2026 Thana- PUSA District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
                 Santosh Mahto @ Santosh Kumar Son of Nand Kishore Mahto @ Kishore
                 Mahto Resident of Village- Bishanpur Bathua, Ward No. 06, P.S.- Pusa,
                 District- Samastipur (Bihar), Pin- 848115

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Barj Kishore Sharma, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   01-07-2026                    Heard Mr. Barj Kishore Sharma, learned counsel for

                   the petitioner and Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                   2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Pusa P.S. Case No. 21 of 2026, F.I.R dated

                   02.03.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Section

                   30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                   3. Recovery is of 85 liters of country made 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.32158 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 place of occurrence and the petitioner is made accused

          merely on the basis of suspicion. Except the suspicion, nothing

          has come during the investigation which suggest the

          involvement of the petitioner. 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.32158 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                            3/4




          petitioner has clean antecedent and the petitioner is made

          accused merely on the basis of suspicion, 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 Special Judge

          Excise-I, Samastipur in connection with Pusa P.S. Case No. 21

          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.32158 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.