Patna High Court
VISHNU URANWversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as the petitioner had no conscious possession of the liquor and no criminal antecedent, and the FIR did not make out an offence under Section 30(a).
Summary
Vishnu Uranw sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after police seized liquor from his residence. The prosecution alleged possession of 10 litres of country-made liquor, but the petitioner contended that nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and he had no criminal antecedent. Relying on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar under Section 76(2) if the FIR does not establish an offence, the court examined the facts. Finding no evidence of conscious possession or prior offences, the court granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions. The order remains subject to revocation if the petitioner is later found to have a criminal antecedent or violates the conditions.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2) when the FIR does not establish an offence?
- Does the petitioner have conscious possession of the seized liquor or any criminal antecedent that would preclude bail?
- Do the facts alleged in the FIR constitute an offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act?
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)
- conscious possession
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35431 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2026 Thana- RUPAULI District- Purnia
======================================================
VISHNU URANW Son of Janaklal Uranw Resident of Village - Ajhokopa,
P.S.- Rupauli, District - Purnia (Bihar), Pin - 854204.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nishant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 21-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Rupauli P.S. Case No. 12 of 2026 for the
offence under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police, during the
course of patrolling, raided the house of Manju Devi, Ramesh
Uranw and Vishnu Uranw (petitioner herein) and there is/are
recovery/seizure of 5 liters, 9 liters and 10 liters of country
made liquor respectively. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession and
he has no criminal antecedent.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35431 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
2/4
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
recovery is from the houses.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that he do not have criminal antecedent and nothing has
been recovered from his conscious possession, 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/-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35431 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
3/4
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Excise Judge, Court
No. 02, Purnia in connection with Rupauli P.S. Case No. 12 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
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.35431 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
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)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.