Patna High Court
Govind PahadiyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case and granted bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Govind Pahadiya, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 after police recovered 54 litres of illicit liquor from an open area near his house. He sought bail, arguing that the seizure was made from a place not belonging to him, that the search and seizure were defective, and that the allegations did not satisfy the conditions of Section 76(2) of the same Act. The State opposed bail, contending that the proximity of the liquor to the petitioner’s residence indicated his complicity. The Court examined the deficiencies in the search, the lack of a proper link to the petitioner’s property, and the absence of any ingredient required under Section 76(2). Concluding that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case, the Court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether the recovery of illicit liquor from an open place near the petitioner’s house establishes his participation in the offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
- Whether the search and seizure complied with the procedural requirements of the Act, particularly Section 76(2).
- Whether bail should be granted in view of the alleged deficiencies in the investigation and the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 — s. 30(a), 76(2)
- BNSS — s. 103, 105
Subjects
- bail
- illicit liquor
- search and seizure
- Section 30
- Section 76
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- procedural defect
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35680 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2026 Thana- ANTICHAK District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Govind Pahadiya son of Late Karu Paharia Resident of village- Kutubnagar,
P.S.- Antichak, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Sharda Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 02-06-2026 Heard Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya, learned Advocate
for the petitioner and Ms. Sharda Kumari, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Antichak P.S. Case No. 15 if 2026 registered for the
offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. The police on a tip off regarding trade of illicit
liquor, conducted a raid. However, noticing the police party,
some of the persons, who were assembled there, succeeded in
fleeing away. On search, total 54 litres country made liquor was
recovered beside the house of the petitioner. The local
Chowkidar has disclosed that the illicit liquor has been kept by
this petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35680 of 2026(2) dt.02-06-2026
2/3
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner taking this
Court through the FIR as well as the search and seizure memo
submitted that admittedly the alleged recovery has been made
beside the house of the petitioner and for which the petitioner
cannot be held responsible. Only on account of one past
criminal antecedent of identical nature the name of the
petitioner has been implicated in this case. There is complete
defiance of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS. Moreover, the
disclosure of the local Mahal Chowkidar appears to be doubtful
and mala fide in nature. Learned Advocate for the petitioner
further contended that even if the allegation is taken to be true
for the sake of argument, it does not attract the rigors provided
under section 76 (2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
(Amendment) Act.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the
recovery of huge illicit wine near by the house of the petitioner
clearly pointed the complicity of the petitioner in the crime.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the learned advocate for the respective parties and
taking note of the fact that the alleged recovery has been made
from an open place which does not belong to the petitioner,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35680 of 2026(2) dt.02-06-2026
3/3
coupled with the deficiency in search and seizure and absence of
any ingredient attracting the rigors provided under Section
76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, let
the petitioner abovenamed 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 District and Additional Sessions Judge-IX,
Bhagalpur in connection with Antichak P.S. Case No. 15 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)
Anjani/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.