Patna High Court
Kundan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted as the FIR did not establish a cognizable offence against the petitioner under Section 30(a).
Summary
The petitioner, Kundan Kumar, feared arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after police seized 100 litres of illicit liquor from a wheat field, but no liquor was found in his conscious possession. He applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the seizure did not constitute an offence against him. 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 allows anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) when the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence, held that no offence was made out against the petitioner. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 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 Act when the alleged seizure is not from the accused's conscious possession.
- Whether the bar under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act precludes an anticipatory bail application in this circumstance.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- conscious possession
- Section 30
- Section 76
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34999 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2026 Thana- NOORSARAI District- Nalanda
======================================================
Kundan Kumar S/o Kishor Yadav Resident of Village- Malbigha, P.S.-
Noorsarai, District- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, 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 Noorsarai P.S. Case No. 105 of 2026 instituted under
Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the police, on secret
information, reached the wheat field where there is
recovery/seizure of 100 liters of country-made liquor and the
local people disclosed the name of the accused, including the
petitioner, which led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
recovery/seizure is 100 liters and not from the conscious
possession.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34999 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
2/4
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. Narsingh Tanti 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 the 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 Noorsarai P.S. Case
No. 105 of 2026 to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge
Excise-II, Nalanda at Biharsharif subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other
conditions.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34999 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
3/4
(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;
(vi) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34999 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
4/4
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.