Patna High Court
Sachin Kumar @ Sachin YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court held that in the absence of any material seized from the petitioner or other substantive evidence, the provisions of Section 76(2) do not apply and bail must be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Sachin Kumar, sought pre‑arrest bail after the police, acting on a tip, intercepted a motorcycle involved in illicit wine trafficking and, based on a local chaukidar's identification, named him as the fleeing individual. No wine or any other contraband was found in his possession, nor was any material linked to him during the investigation. The petitioner argued that the lack of seized items meant Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act did not apply, while the State highlighted his three prior similar convictions. The court noted that, apart from the chaukidar’s uncorroborated identification, there was no substantive evidence to invoke the stringent bail provisions of Section 76(2). Consequently, the court ordered his release on bail, subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement, based solely on a chaukidar’s identification, attracts the rigors of Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act for denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior convictions justify denial of pre‑arrest bail despite lack of material seized from him.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 76(2)
- search and seizure
- chaukidar identification
- criminal antecedent
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 35628 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2026 Thana- JANTA BAZAR District- Saran
======================================================
Sachin Kumar @ Sachin Yadav Son of Bhola Yadav @ Bhola Ray Resident of
Village- Lauwa/Lauvakala, P.S- Baniyapur, District- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, 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 Janta Bazar P.S. Case No. 98 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 trafficking of illicit wine
intercepted a motorcycle. However, noticing the police party,
out of two persons, one succeeded in fleeing away. Later on, the
local Chaukidar disclosed the name of the petitioner, as a
person, who succeeded in fleeing. In course of search, total
25.92 liters illicit wine was recovered.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 35628 of 2026(2) dt.01-06-2026
2/3
the petitioner has neither any concern with the motorcycle, in
question, nor with the recovered illicit wine. The disclosure of
the name of the petitioner by local Chaukidar also appears to be
doubtful. The reason behind the said occurrence is nothing but
the past criminal antecedent of the petitioner, as has been
disclosed in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. Since
nothing has been recovered from the conscious or constructive
possession of the petitioner nor any materials have collected
during the course of investigation and, as such, the rigors
provided under Section 76 (2) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise (Amendment) Act is not attracted is the contention of the
learned Advocate for the petitioner.
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 of identical
nature, besides his name has been disclosed by local Chaukidar.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the fact that save and except the disclosure made by the local
Chaukidar, there is no cogent material attracting the rigors
provided under Section 76 (2) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise (Amendment) Act as well as the deficiencies in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 35628 of 2026(2) dt.01-06-2026
3/3
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 I/C 3rd Exclusive
Special Excise Judge, Saran at Chapra in connection with Janta
Bazar P.S. Case No. 98 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.