Patna High Court
Rahul Yadav @ Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted as no offence under the Act was made out against the petitioner despite the Section 76(2) bar.
Summary
Rahul Yadav applied for anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 12.375 litres of foreign liquor from his father’s house. The petitioner argued that he had no criminal antecedent, the liquor was not in his possession, and relied on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State (2019) which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) if no offence is made out. The State opposed, contending that the petitioner was involved in the seizure. The Court, considering the lack of possession, clean record, and the precedent, granted anticipatory bail with a Rs.10,000 bond and several conditions regarding appearance, reporting, and non‑interference with witnesses. The order directs the petitioner to surrender within four weeks and comply with the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of possession and clean criminal record justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 76(2)
- bail conditions
- possession
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35397 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2026 Thana- KAUWAKOL District- Nawada
======================================================
Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar S/o Vinod Yadav Resident of Vill. - Badraji,
P.S.-Kawakol, District - Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Sitesh Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 21-05-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP representing the State through virtual
mode.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Kawakol P.S. Case No. 114 of 2026 for the
offence under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act lodged on 25.02.2026 by the informant, Ramashanker
Chaudhary.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police on secret
information raided the house of the petitioner’s father Vinod
Yadav and there is recovery/seizure of 12.375 liter foreign
liquor, petitioner managed to escape. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35397 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
2/4
admittedly, the house belongs to his father, beside his arrest, the
petitioner has also been implicated. Last submissions is that he
do not have 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
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 the
house may belong to Vinod Yadav, the petitioner also has a role
in the said recovery/seizure.
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, he do not have criminal antecedent, in that
background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of
anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35397 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
3/4
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
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise-2,
Nawada in connection with Kawakol P.S. Case No. 114 of 2026
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35397 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
4/4
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
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.