Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Raj Kumar RajvanshiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied.

Summary

Petitioner Raj Kumar Rajvanshi applied for anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, where 25 litres of illicit liquor and 6,000 litres of fermented Jawa Mahua were recovered. He claimed innocence, stating that nothing was found in his conscious possession and that the recovery was from an open place accessible to all. The State opposed the bail, highlighting four pending criminal cases against the petitioner, all under the same Act. The Patna High Court, after considering the facts, declined to grant anticipatory bail. However, the Court directed that if the petitioner surrenders within six weeks, the trial court must decide his bail application on the merits on the same day without prejudice.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.
  • Whether the existence of four pending cases under the same Act precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
  • Whether the fact that the seized liquor was recovered from an open place affects the bail consideration.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • prohibition law
  • illicit liquor
  • excise
  • criminal procedure
  • bail
  • pending cases

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36409 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-502 Year-2020 Thana- RAJAOLI District- Nawada
                 ======================================================
                 Raj Kumar Rajvanshi S/o Bale Rajvanshi Resident of Village - Kharoundh,
                 P.S. - Sirdala, Dist. - Nawada, at present R/o Village - Kumbhiyatari, P.S. -
                 Rajaun, Dist. - Nawada.
                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Krishna Deo Raj, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   03-06-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Rajauli P.S. Case No. 502 of 2020, dated 22.10.2020,

                   lodged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise

                   (Amendment) Act, 2016, pending before the Court of Exclusive

                   Special Excise Judge-II, Nawada.

                                3. As per the prosecution, total recovery of 25 litres of

                   illicit liquor and 6000 litres of fermented Jawa Mahua have been

                   made, which is the subject matter of the present case.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel

                   further submits that nothing has been recovered from the

                   conscious possession of the petitioner. Counsel further submits
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36409 of 2026(2) dt.03-06-2026
                                                      2/2




                    that the alleged recovery has been made from an open place,

                    which is accessible to all. Counsel also submits that the criminal

                    antecedent of the petitioner is not clean, as there are four

                    criminal cases pending against him.

                                 5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the

                    prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that four criminal

                    cases are pending against the petitioner, and all the cases are

                    related to the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.

                                 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

                    present case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail

                    to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of

                    the petitioner is hereby rejected.

                                 7. Liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that if he

                    surrenders within six weeks, the Trial Court is directed to pass

                    order on his surrender-cum-bail application on the same day

                    without being prejudiced by the fact that the anticipatory bail

                    application of the petitioner has been rejected by this Court, and

                    the Trial Court shall pass an order on the merits of the case.



                                                                    (Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-

U     T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.