Patna High Court
Santosh Mahto @ Santosh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
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
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
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
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.