Nitish PaswanversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35617 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2026 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas
                 ======================================================
                 Nitish Paswan Son of Raju Paswan @ Raju Ram, Resident of Village
                 -Uchitpur PS- Sasaram (Muffasil) District -Rohtas

                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Ashutosh Tripathy, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, 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 Sasaram (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.57 of 2026 registered for

                   the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar

                   Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.

                                3. In course of patrolling duty, on a tip-off regarding

                   the concealment of illicit wine, the police conducted a raid at the

                   house of the petitioner and 7.920 lts. of illicit wine was

                   recovered. However, on noticing the police party, the petitioner

                   succeeded in fleeing away from the back door of the house.

                                4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted

                   that the entire prosecution case is wholly doubtful inasmuch as

                   the seizure list witnesses are exclusively police personnel and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35617 of 2026(2) dt.01-06-2026
                                            2/3




          no independent witness has been associated with the search and

          seizure. It is further submitted that had the alleged recovery

          actually been effected from the house of the petitioner, the

          seizure list would ordinarily have borne the signatures of the

          family members present at the premises, which clearly smacks

          mala fide on the part of the police personnel. There is complete

          defiance of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS. It is further

          contended that the arbitrariness of the police action is evident

          from the fact that while the petitioner has been implicated in the

          present case on the basis of the alleged recovery from his house,

          another recovery allegedly effected in the vicinity of the

          petitioner's house has formed the basis of a separate FIR against

          the petitioner's brother. The said fact has been categorically

          stated in para-10 of the bail application. It is thus contended that

          the very search and seizure being doubtful, the rigors of Section

          76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (for short,

          "the Act, 2016") are not attracted.

                       5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State,

          vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the

          recovery of illicit wine from the house of the petitioner clearly

          suggests his complicity.

                       6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35617 of 2026(2) dt.01-06-2026
                                                      3/3




                    the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note

                    of the deficiency in the search and seizure, besides non-

                    compliance of the mandatory provision of Sections 103 and 105

                    of the BNSS, and the absence of materials sufficient to attract

                    the rigors provided under Section 76(2) of the Act, 2016 as well

                    as the fair antecedent of the petitioner, 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. 10,000/- (Ten

                    thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

                    satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise-II,

                    Sasaram, Rohtas in connection Sasaram (Muffasil) P.S. Case

                    No.57 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