Patna High Court
Ravi Ranjan Kumar @ RabaraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail is appropriate as the seizure was from an open place and no offence under Section 30(a) was established.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Ranjan Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after the police seized 200 litres of illicit liquor near the Punpun River and named him in the FIR under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act. The petitioner argued that the liquor was recovered from an open place and not from his conscious possession, contending that no offence was made out. The State opposed, citing the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The court, relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar (2019) which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) when the FIR does not establish an offence, held that the circumstances warranted bail. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with a Rs.10,000 bond and several conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
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 facts alleged in the FIR constitute an offence under Section 30(a) of the Act.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- prohibition act
- excise law
- Section 30
- seizure of illicit liquor
- Cr.P.C. Section 438
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34978 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-281 Year-2026 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna
======================================================
Ravi Ranjan Kumar @ Rabara S/O Satyendra @ Guddi Rai R/O Village-
Bhagwanpur (Devarsaukhi), P.S.- Panchrukhiya, Distt- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 20-05-2026 1. Heard the parties through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Gaurichak (Panchrukhia) P.S. Case No. 281 of 2026
instituted under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Amendment Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the police, on secret
information, raided the place near the Punpun River and there
was recovery/seizure of 200 liters of country-made liquor. Those
present there named this petitioner. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a
perusal of the FIR shows that the recovery/seizure was made
near the river and not from the conscious possession of the
petitioner.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34978 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
2/4
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, Md. Shakir Ahmad 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 the recovery is from an open place, 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 Gaurichak
(Panchrukhia) P.S. Case No. 281 of 2026 to the satisfaction of
learned Special Judge Excise, Patna City, Patna subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34978 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
3/4
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.34978 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)
Nirmal/Aniket
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.