Patna High Court
Sikandar Kumar @ Sikander KumarversusThe state of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted where the alleged seizure is not from the petitioner's conscious possession and no offence is made out under the Act, notwithstanding the bar in Section 76(2).
Summary
The petitioner, Sikandar Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged seizure of 104.025 litres of foreign liquor from a house shared with another person. He argued that nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and relied on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) if no offence is made out. The State opposed the bail on the ground of the petitioner's criminal antecedents. The High Court, considering the lack of direct possession and the cited precedent, granted anticipatory bail with a set of conditions regarding sureties, appearance before police and courts, and non‑interference with witnesses. The order directs the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and comply with the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2)?
- Does the absence of recovery from the petitioner's conscious possession justify granting anticipatory bail?
- Do the petitioner's prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 76(2)
- foreign liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34570 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2026 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Sikandar Kumar @ Sikander Kumar Son of Jogendra Prasad @ Jogendara
Prasad @ Yogendra Prasad Resident of village- Saidpur, Police Station-
Makhdumpur (Tehta), District- Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Pathak, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 19-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Makhdumpur(Tehta) P.S. Case No. 136 of 2026
for the offence under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act lodged on 15.02.2026 by the informant, Poonam
Chaudhary.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on secret information raided the house of the petitioner and
there is recovery/seizure of 104.025 liters foreign liquor . This
led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession rather
from a common house and further allegation has also been made
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34570 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026
2/4
against one Gudiya Devi.
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
also that nothing has been recovered from his conscious
possession rather from a common house, in that background,
this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory
bail with conditions.
8. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34570 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026
3/4
satisfaction of learned Special Excise Judge-I, Jehanabad in
connection with Makhdumpur(Tehta) P.S. Case No. 136 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;
(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 next 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;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34570 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026
4/4
(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)
Vinayak/Anjali
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.