Patna High Court
Raghubir MukhiaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner, subject to a bond and conditions, as the prosecution failed to establish material linking him to the seized liquor and the statutory rigors were not attracted.
Summary
The petitioner, Raghubir Mukhia, was identified as one of two persons who fled a police raid on an open area (Gandak Diyara) where 1000 litres of raw wine and 40 litres of country-made liquor were seized under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. The petitioner argued that the seizure occurred in a public place, no material was found in his possession, and the investigation did not produce any evidence linking him to the offence, nor were the procedural requirements of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS complied with. The State opposed bail, contending the seriousness of the alleged offences. The Court examined the lack of incriminating material, the absence of the rigors of Section 76(2) of the Prohibition Act, and the deficiency in the search and seizure process, and consequently ordered bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and additional conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The order directs the petitioner to surrender within four weeks if arrested.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is liable to be detained pending trial for offences under Sections 30(a), 32 and 41(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the procedural safeguards under Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS were complied with in the seizure.
- Whether the rigors of Section 76 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act are attracted in the present facts.
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under the applicable law.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a), 32, 41(a), 76
- BNSS — s. 103, 105
Subjects
- bail
- illicit liquor
- prohibition act
- search and seizure
- open place
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35367 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2025 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Raghubir Mukhia Son of Sheonath Mukhia @ Shiv Nath Mukhiya Resident
of Village- Sangrampur Bin Toli, P.S.- Sangrampur, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sagar Kumar, Adv.
Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Sharda Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 01-06-2026 Heard Mr. Sagar Kumar, learned Advocate for the
petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 32, 41(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Acting on a tip off regarding the manufacture and
trafficking of illicit liquor, the police conducted a raid at
Sangrampur Gandak Diyara. However, noticing the police party,
two persons succeeded in fleeing away and the petitioner has
been identified as one of them. On search, total 1000 litres of
raw wine and 40 litres of country made liquor was recovered.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35367 of 2026(2) dt.01-06-2026
2/3
Raw materials are said to have been destroyed by the police at
the place of occurrence itself.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner taking this
Court through the FIR and the search memo submitted that
admittedly the alleged recovery has been made from Gandak
Diyara, which is an open place easily accessible to all and, as
such, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same.
Moreover, during the course of investigation, no further material
has been collected which suggests the complicity of the
petitioner in the crime. It is lastly contended that there is no
compliance of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS and since
nothing incriminating has been recovered from the conscious or
constructive possession of the petitioner, the rigors provided
under Section 76 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
(Amendment) Act is also not attracted.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the respective parties and considering the fact that the
alleged recovery has been made from an open place and there is
no material attracting the rigors provided under Section 76(2) of
the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act as also the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35367 of 2026(2) dt.01-06-2026
3/3
fair antecedent of the petitioner, besides the deficiency brought
to the knowledge of this Court in search and seizure, let the
petitioner abovenamed be released on bail, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Special Judge, Excise Court No. 1, East Champaran,
Motihari in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 12 of
2025, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of
the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the further
condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family
members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.