Patna High Court
Santosh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
In the absence of any material connecting the petitioner to the seized liquor or the motorcycle and lacking the requisites for invoking Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, the court held that bail must be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Santosh Kumar, applied for bail after being implicated in a case (PS Case No.55 of 2026) for alleged involvement in transporting illicit wine under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. The police recovered 110 litres of country-made liquor from a seized motorcycle, and an arrested accomplice named the petitioner as an absconder. The petitioner argued that he had no connection to the motorcycle or the liquor and that no material seized was in his possession, invoking the lack of applicability of Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and pointing out procedural deficiencies. The State contended that the petitioner had prior similar convictions and was identified as an accomplice. The court examined the evidence, found no material linking the petitioner to the seized items, and noted the absence of grounds to invoke the stringent provisions of Section 76(2). Consequently, the court ordered that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond and sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in the absence of material linking him to the seized illicit liquor.
- Whether Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 is attracted in the present facts.
- Whether the mandatory provisions of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS apply to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 76(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a)
- BNSS — s. 103, 105, 482(2)
Subjects
- bail
- illicit liquor
- prohibition law
- excise
- search and seizure
- criminal antecedents
- Section 76(2)
- Section 30(a)
- BNSS
- Section 482(2)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35603 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2026 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul
======================================================
Santosh Kumar S/o Chhotelal Paswan, R/o Village - Bairiya, Ward no. 16, P.S
- Supaul, District - Supaul, Pin - 852131
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shubhra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 01-06-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Supaul P.S. Case No.55 of 2026 registered for the offence
punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Acting upon a tip-off about transportation of illicit
wine, the police intercepted a motorcycle. However, noticing the
police party, one of the accused persons succeeded in fleeing
away. The apprehended person disclosed the name of the
petitioner as absconding accused. In course of search, 110 liters
of country made liquor were recovered.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has neither any concern with the alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35603 of 2026(2) dt.01-06-2026
2/3
motorcycle nor with the recovered illicit wine. Only on account
of his past criminal antecedents, as disclosed in para-3 of the
bail application, his name has been implicated in this case. Since
there is no recovery from the conscious or constructive
possession of the petitioner, and in the absence of other
materials, the rigors provided under Section 76(2) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (for short ‘the Act, 2016’) is
also not attracted. There is further defiance of the mandatory
provisions as provided under Sections 103 and 105 of the
BNSS.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that,
besides the petitioner carrying four criminal antecedents of
identical nature, his name has been disclosed by the
apprehended person as one of the accomplice.
6. Regard being had to the submissions made on
behalf of the parties, and considering the fact that the petitioner
has no concern with the alleged motorcycle from which the
recovery has been made, besides the fact that during the course
of investigation no other materials have been collected
suggesting the complicity of the petitioner in the crime, as well
as the deficiency pointed out in the search and seizure and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35603 of 2026(2) dt.01-06-2026
3/3
absence of materials which attract the rigors provided under
Section 76(2) of the Act, 2016, let the above named petitioner,
be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before
the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from
today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No.1,
Supaul in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No.55 of 2026,
subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of
the BNSS, with further condition that one of the bailors shall be
the own/close family members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.