Patna High Court
Guddu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as no conscious possession was established and the bar under Section 76(2) does not apply where no offence is made out.
Summary
Guddu Kumar sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after police seized 9.4 litres of illicit liquor from bushes and named him based on local information. He contended that the liquor was not in his conscious possession and that his prior criminal record should not alone justify his arrest. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, he argued that anticipatory bail is permissible despite the bar in Section 76(2) when no offence is established. The court, after considering the submissions and the precedent, found no evidence of conscious possession and granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions. The order remains subject to revocation if it later emerges that the petitioner was indeed involved or has a criminal antecedent.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2)?
- Was the petitioner in conscious possession of the seized liquor?
- Does the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent preclude 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
- conscious possession
- criminal antecedent
- Section 30(a)
- Section 76(2)
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35436 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-561 Year-2025 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Guddu Kumar S/o Pramod Sharma @ Pramod Mahto Resident of village -
Bahuarwa, P.S - Majhauliya, District - West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 21-05-2026 Heard the parties through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 561 of 2025 for the
offence under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police, on secret
information, raided the place and from the bushes, there is
recovery/seizure of 9.4 liters country made liquor and the locals
gave the name of the petitioner which led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
recovery/seizure is from the bushes and not from the conscious
possession and only due to his one criminal antecedent, got
implicated.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35436 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 vehemently opposes the prayer
submitting that the petitioner has one 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 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/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35436 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
3/4
satisfaction of Court concerned in connection with Majhaulia
P.S. Case No. 561 of 2025 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;
(vi) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35436 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
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)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.