Patna High Court
Raju KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as there is no material evidence of his complicity and the statutory rigors for denial of bail are not satisfied.
Summary
Raju Kumar, the owner of a scooty from which 27.12 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was seized, was implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. He contended that he was not present at the scene, no material evidence linked him to the offence, and the investigation failed to comply with Sections 103 and 105 of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act (BNSS). The State argued that ownership of the vehicle indicated complicity. The Court noted that the vehicle was being used by the petitioner’s brother, there was no material suggesting the petitioner’s participation, he had a clean antecedent, and the conditions of Section 76(2) of the Act were not met. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail, subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and additional conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The bail order was conditioned on surrender within four weeks and one bailor being a close family member.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner, as owner of the seized vehicle, is liable to be detained without bail under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
- Whether the investigation complied with the procedural requirements of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS.
- Whether the circumstances attract the rigors of Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act (BNSS) — s. 103, 105, 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 41, 76(2)
Subjects
- bail
- prohibition and excise
- seizure of liquor
- ownership liability
- Section 482
- Section 76
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36271 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2026 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Raju Kumar Son of Chandu Rai Resident of Village- Sadikpur, Rukanpura,
P.S.- Rupaspur, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mickey Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 02-06-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Danapur P.S. Case No.53 of 2026 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. In course of patrolling, the police intercepted a
scooty and apprehended one Vicky Kumar. On search, total
27.12 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was recovered. The
petitioner has been implicated in this case on account of he
being the owner of the said vehicle.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
admittedly the petitioner was neither present at the place of
occurrence nor during the course of investigation any materials
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36271 of 2026(2) dt.02-06-2026
2/3
have been collected showing his complicity in the crime. Only
on account of he being owner of the seized scooty, his name has
been implicated in this case. There is no compliance of Section
103 and 105 of the BNSS and moreover the petitioner bears fair
antecedent and there is no other ingredients which attract the
rigors provided under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act, 2016 (for short ‘the Act, 2016’).
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the
vehicle in question from where recovery has been made belongs
to the petitioner and, as such, his complicity in the crime cannot
be ruled out.
6. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf
of the parties and considering the fact that the vehicle in
question was being used by his brother from where recovery has
been made, however during the course of investigation no
materials have been collected suggesting his complicity, besides
his fair antecedent and the absence of materials attracting the
rigors provided under Section 76(2) of the Act, 2016, let the
above named petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36271 of 2026(2) dt.02-06-2026
3/3
10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Special Excise Judge,
Danapur in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No.53 of 2026,
subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of
the BNSS, with further condition that one of the bailors shall be
the own/close family members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.