Patna High Court
Ranjan Paswan @ Sujan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, finding that no offence was made out against him under the Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjan Paswan, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act for the seizure of 178.2 litres of country‑made liquor from an auto‑rickshaw. He contended that he was neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle, the driver having identified himself as Bablu Kumar. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent. Relying on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which held that anticipatory bail can be granted despite the bar in Section 76(2) if no offence is made out against the applicant, the court was persuaded. The court therefore granted anticipatory bail, subject to a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties and a series of conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the Act.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act despite the bar in Section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioner, who is not the owner or driver of the vehicle, can be held liable for the offence under Section 30(a).
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 76(2)
- Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
- liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34955 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2026 Thana- DEV District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Ranjan Paswan @ Sujan Kumar S/O Alakhdeo Paswan R/O Vill.- Pasia
Bhandari, P.S.- Deo, Dist.- Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs.Mukul Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 20-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Deo P.S. Case No. 46 of 2026 instituted under Section
30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act
lodged on 18.02.2026 by the informant, Rahul Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the vehicle (Auto) was
intercepted and there is recovery/seizure of 178.2 liters of
country made liquor. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is
neither the owner nor the driver of the said vehicle and the
driver Bablu Kumar gave his name.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34955 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
2/4
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, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh opposes
the prayer submitting that he has one 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 he does not own the vehicle nor anything has been
recovered from his conscious possession, 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 Deo P.S. Case No. 46
of 2026 to the satisfaction of learned District and Additional
Sessions Judge-cum Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court
No.01, Aurangabad subject to the conditions as laid down under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34955 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
3/4
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
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.34955 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
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)
Ravi/S.Prasad
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.