Patna High Court
Ravindra Kumar @ Nashib @ Nashiban @ Ravinda KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that bail must be granted as the prosecution failed to establish the requisites of Section 76(2) and the search‑seizure was defective.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravindra Kumar, was implicated in a case (Bypass P.S. Case No. 146 of 2026) under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after a police raid recovered 6.250 litres of illicit country-made liquor. The only link to the petitioner was the oral disclosure of his name by a co‑accused, with no material seized from his possession and alleged procedural lapses in the search and seizure, including non‑compliance with Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the evidentiary material was insufficient to invoke the stringent bail denial provisions of Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act. The State opposed bail, citing three prior criminal antecedents and the co‑accused’s statement. The Court, after evaluating the lack of substantive evidence and the procedural deficiencies, held that the conditions for invoking Section 76(2) were not met and granted pre‑arrest bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, one of whom must be a close family member, and the conditions of Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act to deny bail in the present case?
- Whether the procedural deficiencies in search and seizure under Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS preclude the issuance of a non‑bailable order?
- Whether the oral disclosure by a co‑accused, in the absence of any material seized from the petitioner, is sufficient to justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act — s. 76(2)
- BNSS — s. 103, 105
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- search and seizure
- Section 76(2)
- Section 103
- Section 105
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35620 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2026 Thana- BYPASS District- Patna
======================================================
Ravindra Kumar @ Nashib @ Nashiban @ Ravinda Kumar Son of Sanjay
Prasad @ Naga Bind Resident of Bahari Begampur, Beldari Tola, Begampur,
Patna City, P.S.- Bypass, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramesh Chandra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 01-06-2026 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through
virtual mode.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Bypass P.S. Case No. 146 of 2026, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. The police on a tip of regarding sale of illicit wine
conducted raid. However, noticing the police party, one person
succeeded in fleeing away and co-accused Raman Kumar was
apprehended. The apprehended person disclosed the name of the
petitioner. In course of search, total 6.250 liters country made
liquor was recovered.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35620 of 2026(2) dt.01-06-2026
2/3
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
save and except the disclosure made by the apprehended person,
there is no material suggesting the complicity of the petitioner in
crime. Admittedly, nothing has been recovered from the
conscious or constructive possession of the petitioner, besides
there is serious deficiencies in the search and seizure and no
compliance of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS. Even if the
materials available on record is accepted for the sake of
argument, the rigors provided under Section 76 (2) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act is not attracted. The
reason behind the false implication is said to be the past
criminal antecedent of identical nature.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that the
petitioner is carrying three criminal antecedent and his name has
been disclosed by apprehended person.
6. Regard being had to the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and considering the fact that during the
course of investigation, no materials have been collected, which
suggest the complicity of the petitioner in the present crime,
besides absence of any cogent material attracting the rigors
provided under Section 76 (2) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35620 of 2026(2) dt.01-06-2026
3/3
Excise Amendment Act as also the deficiencies disclosed in the
search and seizure, let the petitioner above named be released
on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court
below within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge
Excise, Patna City/ Exclusive Special Court of Excise, Patna
City in connection with Bypass P.S. Case No. 146 of 2026,
subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the further
condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family
members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.