Patna High Court
Ranjeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail is appropriate as the FIR does not establish a prima facie offence under Section 30(a) and the bar in Section 76(2) is inapplicable.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act after police alleged that a damaged motorcycle he owned was used to transport 9 litres of foreign liquor. The petitioner contended that the motorcycle was abandoned after an accident and that the liquor recovery was falsely reported. The State opposed, citing a criminal antecedent and the statutory bar under Section 76(2) of the Act. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, the Court held that anticipatory bail can be granted where the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence despite the statutory bar. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent 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 protection from arrest pending trial.
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.
- false FIR
- seizure of liquor
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34986 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2026 Thana- BRAHMPUR District- Buxar
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar Son of Mahant Kewat Resident of Sevadaha PO -Bhakhri PS-
Dhanarua, Dist- Buxar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, 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 Brahmpur P.S. Case No. 18 of 2026 instituted under
Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment
Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, a damaged motorcycle
was found on the road and there is recovery/seizure of 9 liters of
foreign liquor, and the petitioner is the owner, which led to the
FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after
the accident, the motorcycle was left behind and the petitioner
had gone in search of a mechanic, but in the meantime the
police falsely shown recovery of 9 liters of foreign liquor and
registered the FIR.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34986 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
2/4
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. Sanjay Kumar Pandey 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 nothing 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 Brahmpur P.S. Case
No. 18 of 2026 to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge,
Excise Court No. 2, Buxar subject to the conditions as laid
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34986 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
3/4
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
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34986 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
4/4
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.