Patna High Court
Md. NasirversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court granted bail to both petitioners subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and specific conditions of appearance.
Summary
The petitioners, Md. Nasir and Md. Arman, were arrested as driver and passenger of a tempo from which 225 litres of Nepali liquor was seized, leading to charges under Sections 30(a), 32(1) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018. The petitioners argued that they were not owners of the vehicle, there was no independent witness to the seizure, and one of them had a clean antecedent while the other had a prior similar offence. The State opposed bail, relying on the allegations in the FIR. The Court examined the lack of direct evidence linking the petitioners to the liquor and considered the prior record, ultimately deciding to grant bail. Each petitioner was required to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, one of whom must be a blood relative, and to appear in court regularly, with bail liable to be cancelled upon non‑appearance on two consecutive dates.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in an excise case involving seizure of illicit liquor under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018
- Whether the absence of an independent witness to the seizure and the petitioners' lack of ownership of the tempo affect the bail decision
- Impact of a prior similar criminal antecedent on the grant of bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 — s. 30(a), 32(1), 32(3)
Subjects
- bail
- excise law
- liquor seizure
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- court conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35932 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2026 Thana- Excise Jhanjharpur District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Md. Nasir Son of Md. Bhutkun R/o - Jhanjharpur, Ward No.12, P.S -
Jhanjharpur, District - Madhubani, Bihar
2. Md. Arman Son of Md. Ayub Resident at village- Khutauna, ps- Khautauna,
Dist- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 30(a), 32(1) and 32(3) of
the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. As per the prosecution case, 225 litres of Nepali
liquor was recovered from Tempo.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are said to be the driver and the passenger of the
said tempo. However, there is no independent witness to search
and seizure. The petitioners are neither the owner of the tempo
nor have any concern with the alleged recovered liquor. The
petitioners are in custody since 24.04.2026 and while petitioner
no.1 has clean antecedent, petitioner no.2 has one criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35932 of 2026(2) dt.08-06-2026
2/2
antecedent of similar nature.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the grant of
bail on the basis of allegation made in the First Information
Report.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioners, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special
Judge Excise Act, Jhanjharpur, Motihari/concerned Court
below in connection with Excise Jhanjharpur P.S. Case No. 87
of 2026 subject to condition that:-
(i) One of the bailors will be their own blood
relative, preferably, father, mother, brother, sister.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present
in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of
failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons,
their bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned
court concerned.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.