Patna High Court
RAJU RAI @ RAJU YADAVversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail may be granted in excise cases despite Section 76(2) where the FIR does not expressly name the petitioner and no offence is made out, subject to strict conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Raju Rai, sought anticipatory bail after the police seized 882 litres of foreign liquor and named him during interrogation, although his name was absent from the FIR. The prosecution alleged that Rai, along with others, ordered the consignment, invoking sections 30(a), 32, 36 and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. Rai contended that the allegations lacked merit, relied on his criminal antecedent, and cited the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar which permits anticipatory bail despite Section 76(2) if no offence is made out. The court, considering the absence of his name in the FIR, the precedent, and an undertaking by the petitioner to refrain from further criminal activity, granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions. The order stipulated a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and detailed compliance requirements, warning of cancellation if the petitioner breaches any condition.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioner’s name, not appearing in the FIR but mentioned during investigation, suffices to justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 32, 36, 41, 76(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- prohibition act
- criminal antecedent
- FIR
- seizure of liquor
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34547 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2026 Thana- KARPURIGRAM District- Samastipur
======================================================
RAJU RAI @ RAJU YADAV Son of Devendra Ray @ Devendra Yadav
Resident of Naua Chak, Bhagwatpur, P.S.- Sarairanjan, Dist.- Samastipur,
Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Keshav Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 19-05-2026 Heard the parties through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Karpoorigram P.S. Case No. 42 of 2026 for the
offence under sections 30(a), 32, 36 and 41 of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police during night
patrolling and on secret information, intercepted a truck having
Nagaland number and there is recovery/seizure of 882 liters of
foreign liquor. Two persons namely Sarfaraz Khan and Md.
Sahil were arrested and there is recovery/seizure of mobile from
one of the accused. The chowkidar gave the name of those who
managed to escape as Rakesh Mishra, Phulbabu, Suraj Kumar,
Jitendra Sah and Deepak Kumar. This led to the FIR.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34547 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a
perusal of the FIR would show that he has not been named but
during the interrogation, the allegation has come that the
consignment was ordered by this petitioner alongwith Guddu
Das and Manish Yadav. The same is bereft of any merit and only
because he has criminal antecedent, the present case. The last
submission is that if granted relief, the petitioner shall not
indulge in any criminal case, failing which, the present bail
bond be cancelled.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in
2019 (2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an
application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar
Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar
under Section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation
made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made
out.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that he
has criminal antecedent.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34547 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026
3/4
also that the FIR has not named him and it has cropped up only
during investigation, as recorded above, and an undertaking has
been given that he shall not indulge in any criminal activity
henceforth, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend
him the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. It is however made clear that if the name of the
petitioner has come in any criminal activity henceforth and the
FIR is lodged, the State shall take immediate steps for
cancellation of the bail bond.
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the
receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge Excise-I,
Samastipur in connection with Karpoorigram P.S. Case No. 42
of 2026 subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the Police
Station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34547 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026
4/4
(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned
police station every fortnight for one year to mark his
attendance and after the end of the period, the certificate shall be
submitted before the Trial Court failing which steps shall be
taken for the cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(vi) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.