Patna High Court
Md. Mahfooz AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail may be granted where no offence is made out against the owner, despite the statutory bar, subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Mahfooz Alam, the owner of a Honda car, was implicated in a case where police seized 16.8 litres of foreign liquor, leading to an FIR under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. He applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that mere ownership of the vehicle should not render him criminally liable and that he has no prior criminal record. The State opposed, contending that ownership imposes responsibility. Relying on the Patna High Court Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar under Section 76(2) if no offence is made out, the court granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions. The order remains subject to revocation if the petitioner is found to have a criminal antecedent or violates any condition.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2)?
- Does ownership of the vehicle automatically make the owner liable for the offence?
- Does the absence of criminal antecedent and lack of possession of the seized liquor justify granting anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 272, 273
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Indian Penal Code
- vehicle ownership liability
- Section 30(a)
- Section 272
- Section 273
- Section 76(2)
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35053 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2021 Thana- PANDAUL District- Madhubani
======================================================
Md. Mahfooz Alam Son of Md. Shabbir R/o Village- Bachharpur, P.S.-
Pupari, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rananjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Iftekhar Mahmood APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 20-05-2026 Heard the parties through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Pandaul P.S. Case No. 122 of 2021 for the
offence under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act and Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police intercepted
a Honda car and there is recovery/seizure of 16.8 liters of
foreign liquor. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only
because he is the owner of the vehicle, got implicated and he
has no criminal antecedent.
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.35053 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 opposes the prayer submitting that
being the owner, cannot exonerate himself from the
responsibility.
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 nor he has criminal antecedent, in that background,
this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory
bail with conditions.
8. If, however, it is found that contrary to the
statement made in paragraph-3, the petitioner has criminal
antecedent, the present order shall become infructuous.
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
arrest or surrender 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 like amount each to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35053 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
3/4
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge Excise Act,
Madhubani in connection with Pandaul P.S. Case No. 122 of
2021 subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document 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 fortnight for six months to mark his
attendance and after the end of the period, the certificate shall be
submitted before the Trial Court failing which steps shall be
taken for the cancellation of the 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.35053 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)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.