Patna High Court
Ratan ThakurversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond and surety conditions, as he was not present at the seizure and had a clean antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Ratan Thakur, sought anticipatory bail after his motorcycle was seized in a raid that uncovered 39.600 litres of Nepali liquor, alleged to be in violation of Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The police arrested two individuals, Md. Amir and Arun Kumar, who were found riding the seized motorcycle; the petitioner claimed he had merely lent the vehicle to a friend and was not present at the scene. The State argued that the liquor belonged to the petitioner and opposed the bail. The Court examined the facts, noting that nothing was seized from the petitioner himself, he had a clean criminal record, and his name appeared only as the vehicle owner. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail, subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of his antecedents under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the owner of a vehicle from which contraband liquor was seized, when he was not present at the scene.
- Whether the seizure of liquor from the vehicle implicates the owner under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- seizure
- liquor
- motor vehicle
- clean antecedent
- Section 30
- Section 482
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35890 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-317 Year-2023 Thana- BATHNAHA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Ratan Thakur S/o Devendra Thakur Resident of Village- Sonbarsa, Ward no.-
5, Patelnagar, P.S.- Sonbarsa, District Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 27-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 317 of 2023 for allegedly having
committed offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been lodged
on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, to
the effect that on 23.07.2023, at around 11:30 a.m., the
informant along with the police party proceeded for conducting
raid with regard to illegal trade of liquor and to apprehend the
wanted accused persons. While he was conducting vehicle
checking near NH-227 Tandaspur intersection, at about 02:30
p.m., he saw two persons coming from the direction of Sursand
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35890 of 2026(2) dt.27-05-2026
2/4
and Bathnaha riding a motorcycle at a very high speed. When
the informant signaled them to stop, they fled away leaving the
motorcycle and the good loaded on the same, however after
chase, they were arrested. Both the arrested persons disclosed
their names as Md. Amir and Arun Kumar respectively. In
presence of the police party, the motorcycle was searched from
which 39.600 litres of Nepali country made liquor was seized.
The liquor and the motorcycle bearing Registration No.BR06C-
2871 was seized.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence,
rather his name has transpired in the presence case, since he
happens to be the owner of the alleged motorcycle which has
been seized. He further submits that the motorcycle was given
to his friend, namely, Arun Kumar for taking his mother to a
doctor. The petitioner was not at all aware that on his
motorcycle, country made liquor was being carried away. The
petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence, therefore
there is no question of any recovery from the petitioner. He
submits that the petitioner has got a clean antecedent.
5. Per contra, the learned APP for the State opposes
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35890 of 2026(2) dt.27-05-2026
3/4
submits that 39.600 litres of Nepali country made liquor was
seized from the motorcycle and the same belongs to the
petitioner.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that the motorcycle along
with 39.600 litres of Nepali country made liquor was seized and
two persons, namely, Md. Amir and Arun Kumar were arrested
from the place of occurrence. The petitioner was not present at
the place of occurrence and nothing was seized from him. His
name transpired in the present case, since he happens to be the
owner of the motorcycle, which is said to have been seized by
the police. The petitioner has got a clean antecedent.
7. Considering the above, let the petitioner above-
named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of
six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond 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.1, Sitamarhi in connection with Bathnaha P.S.
Case No.317 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S with a further condition that:-
The learned court concerned shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35890 of 2026(2) dt.27-05-2026
4/4
that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the
court concerned shall take steps for cancellation of bail bond of
the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of
the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of
or in the name of verification.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.