Patna High Court
Niyaz @ Intezar Alam @ Md. Intezar AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, subject to bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Niyaz @ Intezar Alam, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 for allegedly purchasing Indian Made Foreign Liquor from a co‑accused who was caught with 4.140 litres of liquor. The co‑accused, during interrogation, named the petitioner as the supplier, but no liquor or any other incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner’s possession. The petitioner argued that the sole reliance on the co‑accused’s statement and his past criminal record should not justify denial of anticipatory bail under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The State contended that the co‑accused’s testimony and the petitioner’s prior convictions warranted denial of bail. The Court held that mere prior convictions without concrete evidence of involvement cannot be the sole ground to refuse anticipatory bail and ordered that the petitioner be released on bail if arrested, subject to a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 in the absence of material recovered from his possession.
- Whether the co‑accused’s statement and the petitioner’s past criminal antecedents constitute sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 76(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a)
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- prohibition law
- illegal liquor
- search and seizure
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36302 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2026 Thana- RAUTA District- Purnia
======================================================
Niyaz @ Intezar Alam @ Md. Intezar Alam, Son of Anrul Hasan @ Anirul
Haq Resident of Village - Mangalpur, P.S.- Rauta, District - Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pathak, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 03-06-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Rauta P.S. Case No.76 of 2026 registered for the offence
punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Acting on a secret information that co-accused
Arvind Kumar Modak, who runs a hotel, has brought Indian
Made Foreign Liquor on his motorcycle for the purpose of sale,
the police conducted a raid at his hotel and apprehended him.
During interrogation, the apprehended co-accused allegedly
disclosed the name of the petitioner as the person from whom he
had purchased the said liquor. In course of search, a total of
4.140 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36302 of 2026(2) dt.03-06-2026
2/3
recovered from the motorcycle of co-accused Arvind Kumar
Modak.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that
save and except the disclosure made by the apprehended person,
there is no iota of material suggesting complicity of the
petitioner. The reason behind the false implication of the
petitioner is said to be his past criminal antecedent of identical
nature. The materials available on record clearly suggest that
nothing has been recovered from the conscious or constructive
possession of the petitioner. Thus, it is the contention of the
learned Advocate for the petitioner that the rigors provided
under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act,
2016 (for short ‘the Act 2016’) would not be applicable in this
case. There is further defiance of Section 103 of the BNSS.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
submitted that the apprehended person disclosed the name of the
petitioner, besides he is carrying five criminal antecedents of
identical nature.
6. Having considered the submissions set forth by the
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the fact that no incriminating material has been recovered from
the conscious or constructive possession of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36302 of 2026(2) dt.03-06-2026
3/3
suggesting his complicity in the crime as also mere criminal
antecedent of a person cannot be the sole ground to decline his
prayer for anticipatory bail unless there is other cogent material,
besides there is defiance of mandatory provisions of search and
seizure, 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. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive
Special Excise Judge (Court No.2), Purnea in connection with
Rauta P.S. Case No.76 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.