Patna High Court
Niraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the conditions for invoking the bar under Section 76(2) were not satisfied and therefore granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Niraj Kumar, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 after police recovered 31.5 litres of illicit Nepali liquor from a cow shed during a raid. The petitioner argued that he had no ownership or possession of the shed, that the recovery was from an open place, and that the conditions of Section 76(2) of the Excise Amendment Act were not met, also noting the lack of compliance with Section 103 of the B.N.S.S. The State contended that the recovery indicated the petitioner's complicity and that anticipatory bail was barred under Section 76(2). The Court examined the facts, noting the open nature of the premises, the petitioner's fair antecedent, and the absence of any material linking him directly to the liquor. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and additional conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act when the alleged recovery is from an open premises not owned by the accused.
- Whether the lack of compliance with Section 103 of the B.N.S.S. affects the bail application.
- Whether the petitioner’s fair antecedent and absence of possession preclude the operation of Section 76(2).
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act — s. 76(2)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 103
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illegal liquor
- Section 30(a)
- Section 76(2)
- fair antecedent
- open premises
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35665 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2026 Thana- PATAHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Niraj Kumar Son of Ranjit Sahani Resident of Village - Parshouni Kapoor,
P.S.- Patahi, District - East Champaran, Motihari.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar Gupta, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 02-06-2026 Heard Mr. Sumit Kumar Gupta, learned Advocate for
the petitioner and Mr. Madan Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecution for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Patahi P.S. Case No. 102 of 2026, registered for the
offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Acting on a tip off, regarding illegal purchase and
sell of illicit wine from a cow shed, the police conducted raid,
however, noticing the police party, one person succeeded in
fleeing away which was later on identified as the petitioner by
the local chowkidar. In course of search, total 31.500 litres of
Nepali liquor was recovered.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35665 of 2026(2) dt.02-06-2026
2/3
petitioner has no concern with the cow shed from where the
alleged recovery has been made, only on account of suspicion,
the name of the petitioner has been implicated in this case.
There is no compliance of Section 103 of the B.N.S.S., in as
much as, the witnesses are non else but the police personnel.
Since, no recovery has been made from the conscious or
constructive possession of the petitioner and as such, the rigors
provided under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise (Amendment) Act is not attracted; the petitioner also
bears fair antecedent.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the
recovery from the cow shed of the petitioner clearly suggest his
complicity; besides, there is express bar to maintain anticipatory
bail under Section 76(2) of the Excise Amendment Act.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note
of the fact that the alleged recovery has been made from a cow
shed, which is an open place, easily accessible to all and
moreover, as per the submission of the petitioner, it doesn’t
belong to him; besides, the fair antecedent and absence of the
ingredients which attract the rigors provided under Section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35665 of 2026(2) dt.02-06-2026
3/3
76(2) of the Excise Amendment Act, 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/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No. 3, I/c, Civil
Court, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with Patahi
P.S. Case No. 102 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)
sadique/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.