Patna High Court

Satyendra RamversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 14 May 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: SHAILENDRA SINGH

Holding

The Court held that the liquor was not in the petitioner’s exclusive possession, no prima facie case existed, and therefore anticipatory bail was granted.

Summary

The petitioner, Satyendra Ram, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He contended that the liquor seized was located adjacent to the wall of his house, an area open to the public and not under his exclusive possession, thus negating a prima facie case against him. The opposing counsel acknowledged the location of recovery but opposed the bail. The Court examined the facts and the statutory provisions, concluding that the alleged liquor could not be said to be in the petitioner’s exclusive possession and therefore the offence was not established against him. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond and sureties, invoking Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The petition was disposed in the petitioner’s favour.

Issues considered

Whether liquor recovered from an area adjacent to the petitioner’s house can be deemed to be in his exclusive possession for the purposes of section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in the absence of a prima facie case.

Legislation cited

Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
BNSS — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
exclusive possession
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
section 30(a)
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33355 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2026 Thana- Badem P.S. District- Aurangabad
                 ======================================================
                 Satyendra Ram S/o Late Padum Ram R/o vill - Kekar, P.S.- Badem, Distt.-
                 Aurangabad, Bihar
                                                                         ... ... Petitioner
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Madan Kumar, APP.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   14-05-2026                       Heard the parties.

                                   2.    The petitioner apprehends his arrest in

                   connection with Badem P.S. Case No. 11 of 2026 registered for

                   the offence punishable under section 30(a) of the Bihar

                   Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                   3. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for

                   the petitioner, submits that the alleged liquor is said to have

                   been recovered from a place adjacent to the wall of the

                   petitioner’s house which is accessible to everyone and was not

                   in the exclusive possession of the petitioner at the time of

                   recovery, so, the alleged liquor cannot be deemed to have been

                   recovered from the exclusive possession of the petitioner, hence,

                   the alleged offence under the Excise Act for which the FIR has

                   been registered is not attracted even prima facie against the

                   petitioner, so, his prayer is not hit by Section 76(2) of the Bihar
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33355 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
                                                       2/2




                     Prohibition and Excise Act. It is lastly submitted that the

                     petitioner’s past is completely clean and he has never been

                     involved in any such type of offence.

                                     4. Though learned APP has opposed the prayer of

                     the petitioner but fairly accepted that the place of recovery of

                     the alleged liquor was situated near the wall of the petitioner’s

                     house.

                                   5. In the facts and circumstances of this case and

                     considering the statements made in the petition as well as above

                     submissions, coupled with the place of recovery of the alleged

                     liquor as stated above, this Court is inclined to grant the relief of

                     anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, let the petitioner

                     named-above, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the

                     learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be

                     released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

                     20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the

                     like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in

                     connection with Badem P.S. Case No. 11 of 2026, subject to the

                     conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.


                                               (Shailendra Singh, J)
siddharthkr/-
U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.