Patna High Court
Sanjay Kumar @ PaltaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to specified conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar @ Palta, sought bail after being implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act for allegedly concealing 54 litres of foreign liquor. Police raided the premises based on a tip, recovered the liquor from Golu Kumar’s bathan, and a local chowkidar identified the petitioner among three fleeing individuals. The petitioner contended he had no involvement, arguing that the identification was solely based on the chowkidar’s statement and that he was not present at the scene. The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s ten prior similar offences and the risk of repeat activity. The court, noting the lack of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the seized liquor and the grant of anticipatory bail to a co‑accused, ordered his release on bail with a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, verification of antecedents, and a family member as a bailer, subject to Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite multiple prior offences under the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act.
- Whether identification solely by a local chowkidar suffices to justify continued detention.
- Whether Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. permits the court to impose conditions on bail in this context.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- liquor seizure
- Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act
- criminal antecedents
- identification by chowkidar
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
- excise law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34044 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2026 Thana- MUSAHARI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar @ Palta son of Baidhnath Sah Resident of Village- Nayagaon,
P.S.- Musahari, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 18-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Musahari P.S. Case No. 27 of 2026 registered for the
offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohition &
Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution story which has been lodged
on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant to
the effect that on 17.01.2026, while he along with some
constables was on patrolling duty and when they reached at
Narauli Chowk, he received a secret information that Golu
Kumar, Bihari Shah and Sanjay Kumar @ Palta (petitioner)
have concealed liquor near Bathan of Golu Kumar and they are
in the process of disposing of the same. After giving information
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34044 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
2/4
to the Senior police officials, the informant along with police
party conducted a raid at the place of occurrence. Upon seeing
the police party, three persons started fleeing and even on chase
they succeeded in fleeing away. The local Chowkidar identified
the fleeing person as Golu Kumar, Bihari Shah and Sanjay
Kumar @ Palta i.e. the petitioner herein. From the Bathan of
Golu Kumar, total 54 litres of foreign liquor was recovered and
seizure list was prepared.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence.
The name of the petitioner has transpired in the present case
only on the statement given by the local Chowkidar and since he
has an antecedent of similar nature, he has been named as an
accused in the present case. Total 54 litres of foreign liquor has
been recovered from the Bathan of Golu Kumar and petitioner
has got no concern with the seized liquor or the Bathan, from
where the liquor was seized.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner has got ten criminal antecedents of
similar nature and he is on bail in all the cases.
6. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner is an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34044 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
3/4
accused in ten cases of similar nature and he does not deserve
bail, since on his release, he will again indulge in the same
activity.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and after going the records, it appears that the petitioner was not
present at the place of occurrence. His name has been taken by
the local Chowkidar, who has said that the fleeing persons were
the petitioner and two other co-accused. It has been further
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that co-
accused Bihari Sah has been granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 33314 of 2026 vide order
dated 13.05.2026. Considering the above, let the petitioner,
above named, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period
of six weeks, 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 Court No. III, Muzaffarpur in connection with Musahari
P.S. Case No. 27 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., with further condition:
(i) The learned Court concerned shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34044 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
4/4
is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedents, the court concerned shall take steps 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.
(ii) One of the bailers should be a family member of
the petitioner.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
vinita/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.