Patna High Court
Pravindra Kumar @ Pravendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail, holding that ownership of the vehicle without conscious possession does not justify denial of bail under the cited provisions.
Summary
Pravindra Kumar, the owner of a car from which 58.125 litres of foreign liquor was seized, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, arguing that the liquor was not found in his conscious possession and that he merely lent the car to his driver. The prosecution opposed the bail, invoking Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, which they claimed barred pre‑arrest bail in such offences. The High Court, referring to the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, considered that ownership alone does not constitute possession for the purposes of the offence. Finding the petitioner to have a clean antecedent and no direct involvement, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and several conditions, including cooperation with the trial and no tampering with evidence. The order also directed the lower court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent but not to delay bail on that basis.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC when the accused is only the owner of the vehicle from which prohibited liquor was seized.
- Whether Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, bars the grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a), 76(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- possession
- owner liability
- Section 30
- Section 76
- Section 438
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36843 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2026 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada
======================================================
Pravindra Kumar @ Pravendra Kumar S/O Rambhawan Paswan R/O Village
- Kharsariya, P.O - Baldha, Police Station - Nagarnausa, District- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Sucheta Yadav, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 02-07-2026 Heard Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Sucheta Yadav, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Nawada Muffasil P.S. Case No. 58 of 2026,
F.I.R dated 15.02.2026 registered for the offences punishable
under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise
(Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Recovery is of 58.125 liters of foreign liquor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has clean antecedent and has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that it appears
from the F.I.R that nothing has been recovered from the
conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36843 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
2/4
58.125 liters of foreign liquor has been made from the car in
question and petitioner was not apprehended from the place of
occurrence and the petitioner has been made accused merely on
the ground that he is owner of the said car in question. In fact,
he has given his car to his driver and he has misused the same.
No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner
under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of
the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the
pre-arrest bail would not be maintainable.
6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full
Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar
reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid
down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on
behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant
of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of
counsel for the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been
recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, he has
been made accused merely on the ground that he is owner of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36843 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
3/4
car in question and the petitioner has clean antecedent, let the
petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the court below within a period of thirty days from the
date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive
Special Excise Court-1, Nawada in connection with Nawada
Muffasil P.S. Case No. 58 of 2026, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and with other following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36843 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
4/4
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.