Patna High Court
Dinesh PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted as the seizure violated procedural safeguards and the petitioner was not directly liable under Section 76(2).
Summary
Dinesh Paswan applied for bail after police raided his residence and seized 85 litres of illicit country-made liquor in connection with a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. The petitioner argued that the seizure violated Sections 103 and 105 of the Bihar Negotiable Security Act (BNSS) because no independent witnesses or videographic record were made, and that the joint‑family nature of the house precluded his personal liability. The State contended that the recovery of liquor triggered Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, which bars anticipatory bail. The Court examined the procedural deficiencies in the search and the lack of material attracting the rigors of Section 76(2). Finding the seizure procedurally infirm and the petitioner not directly culpable, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to conditions. The bail bond was set at Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, one of whom must be a close family member, and the order is subject to Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the seizure of illicit liquor complied with Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS requiring independent witnesses and videographic recording.
- Whether the facts attract the rigors of Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, thereby precluding anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner can be held liable for the seized liquor given the joint‑family nature of the premises.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Security Act (BNSS) — s. 103, 105, 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 76(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- search and seizure
- illegal liquor
- Section 76(2)
- Section 103 BNSS
- Section 105 BNSS
- Bihar Prohibition Act
- joint family
- videography requirement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36272 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1108 Year-2025 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR SADAR District-
Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Dinesh Paswan Son of Late Chhotelal Paswan, Resident of village -
Chausima, P.S.- Muzaffarpur Sadar, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Renuka Ratnakar (APP 125)
======================================================
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 Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S. Case No.1108 of 2025 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Acting on a tip-off regarding concealment of illicit
wine, the police conducted a raid at the house of the petitioner.
However, on noticing the police party, the petitioner succeeded
in fleeing away. In the course of search, a total of 85 litres of
country made liquor was recovered from the house of the
petitioner.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36272 of 2026(2) dt.02-06-2026
2/3
the entire prosecution case falls to the ground for the simple
reason that had the recovery been made from the house of the
petitioner, there would have been signatures of any family
members. But surprisingly, the seizure list witnesses are none
else but the police personnel, and there is clear defiance of
Section 103 of the BNSS. It is further contended that Section
105 of the BNSS clearly mandates that if a search and seizure is
made, the same is to be done under videography, which has also
not been followed. Hence, the entire search and seizure appears
to be doubtful. The house of the petitioner is a joint family
house where several persons reside, and in such circumstances
the petitioner cannot be held responsible. It is also submitted
that there is no ingredient which attracts 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, the learned Advocate for the
State vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted
that recovery of illicit wine from the house of the petitioner
clearly bars anticipatory bail under the provisions of Section
76(2) of the Act, 2016.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
the learned Advocates for the respective parties, and taking note
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36272 of 2026(2) dt.02-06-2026
3/3
of the clear defiance of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS,
besides the fair antecedent of the petitioner and also lack of
cogent 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. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Exclusive Special Court, Excise-I, Muzaffarpur in connection
with Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S. Case No.1108 of 2025, 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.