Patna High Court
Amiya Kumar Mondal @ Amiya Kr MondalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail is permissible where the petitioner, though the vehicle owner, is not shown to have committed the offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Amiya Kumar Mondal, the registered owner of a vehicle from which 0.75 litres of illicit foreign liquor was seized, sought anticipatory bail under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He argued that he had no criminal antecedent and was implicated merely as the vehicle owner, relying on a prior Patna High Court decision (Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar) that anticipatory bail can be granted despite the bar in Section 76(2) if the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence. The State opposed, asserting ownership of the vehicle and the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions and the precedent, held that the petitioner was eligible for anticipatory bail as no direct involvement in the offence was established. Accordingly, the Court ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and imposed several conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the Excise Act.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2) when the petitioner is only the vehicle owner.
- Whether the facts alleged in the FIR constitute an offence attributable to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 32(3), 76(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- illicit liquor
- vehicle ownership
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Section 76(2) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34600 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-313 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Amiya Kumar Mondal @ Amiya Kr Mondal S/O Pasupati Mondal Resident
of Chandan Nagar, P.S.- Chandan Nagar, Distt.- Hoogli, West Bengal, India.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dwij Raj, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Khurshid Anwar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 19-05-2026 1. Heard the parties through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Madhya Nisedh P.S. Case No. 313 of 2026 in Special Case
No. 316 of 2016 instituted under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the F.I.R., on 17.03.2026 at about 10:00
A.M., during vehicle checking at Faringola Checkpost under
Kishanganj Police Station, 0.750 liters of illicit foreign liquor
was allegedly recovered from car bearing registration no.
WB16BD-8054. The petitioner is the registered owner of the
said vehicle. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
owns the vehicle, has no criminal antecedent and his name has
been dragged only because he is the owner. His son, Akardipta
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34600 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026
2/4
Mandal, along with his friend, have already been arrested.
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 our 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, Mr. Khurshid Anwar opposes the
prayer submitting that he owns the vehicle.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also those riding the vehicle stand arrested, this petitioner has no
criminal antecedent nor any recovery from the conscious
possession of the petitioner, in that background this Court is
inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event
of his arrest or surrender before the concerned court 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
the like amount each in connection with Madhya Nisedh P.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34600 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026
3/4
Case No. 313 of 2026 to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive
Special Excise Court No. II, Kishanganj subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as
also the other conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/Voter ID/Pan Card
etc.) 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 day for one month and later every fortnight
for next six months to mark his attendance and at the end of the
period a certificate be submitted before the Trial Court failing
which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation
of bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34600 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026
4/4
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)
Nirmal/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.