Patna High Court
Pawan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted as the prosecution failed to establish possession, the search was defective, and the petitioner has a fair antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Pawan Kumar, applied for bail after police alleged that he stored and sold illicit liquor in violation of Section 3(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. Police recovered liquor from a hut they claimed belonged to the petitioner, but the petitioner contested the identification and asserted that the hut was not his property. The petitioner argued that there was no material linking him to the seized liquor, no possession under Section 76(2) of the Act, and that the search violated Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS. The State opposed bail, citing the recovery as evidence of complicity and an express bar on anticipatory bail. The Court found serious deficiencies in the search and seizure, lack of cogent material, and noted the petitioner’s fair antecedent, and therefore ordered his release on bail subject to conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in an offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
- Whether the provisions of Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 are attracted in the absence of conscious or constructive possession.
- Whether the search and seizure complied with Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS.
- Whether the identification of the petitioner as the alleged offender is sufficient to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 3(a), 76(2)
- BNSS — s. 103, 105, 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- liquor offence
- search and seizure
- identification of accused
- fair antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35618 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2026 Thana- Shahartelpa P.S. District- Arwal
======================================================
Pawan Kumar S/O Laldev Yadav @ Laldev Singh, Resident of Village-
Chainpur, P.S.- Sahar Telpa, District- Arwal.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 02-06-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Sahar Telpa P.S. Case No.01 of 2026 registered for the
offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act.
3. Acting on a tip-off regarding storage and sell of
wine by the petitioner, when the police reached in the village,
two persons on noticing them tried to flee but were subsequently
apprehended. From their possession 2.5 liters of liquor were
recovered. In the meantime, another person succeeded in fleeing
away from a nearby hut, and was allegedly identified as the
petitioner. Upon search of the said hut, 15 litres of country-
made liquor were recovered. The apprehended persons, during
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35618 of 2026(2) dt.02-06-2026
2/3
interrogation, disclosed that they used to purchase liquor from
the petitioner.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that,
besides the fact the very identification of the petitioner is
doubtful, the hut from where the recovery was made does not
belong to the petitioner. Save and except the disclosure made by
the apprehended persons, which is not legally admissible, there
is no other material suggesting the complicity of the petitioner
in crime. Since there is no recovery from the conscious and
constructive possession of the petitioner, therefore, the rigors
provided under section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act, 2016 (for short ‘the Act, 2016’) is also not attracted,
is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. It is
lastly contended that the petitioner bears fair antecedent and he
undertakes that he will fully cooperate in the proceedings of the
Court.
5. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the
State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted
that recovery of wine from the hutment of the petitioner clearly
shows his complicity in the crime; besides there is express bar
to maintain the anticipatory bail in such matters.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35618 of 2026(2) dt.02-06-2026
3/3
the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note
of the fact that the hut from where the alleged recovery has been
made doesn't belong to the petitioner, coupled with the serious
deficiency in the search and seizure as also the defiance of
Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS and no cogent material
attracting the rigors provided under Section 76(2) of the Act,
2016 and 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 Special Judge, Excise-II, Jehanabad in
connection with Sahar Telpa P.S. Case No.01 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.