Patna High Court
Kumit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Kumit Kumar, a driver, was arrested on 16 April 2026 in connection with the seizure of 400.140 litres of Indian-made foreign liquor from a vehicle he was driving. He was charged under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018. The petitioner argued that he has a clean antecedent, is not the owner of the vehicle, and that the seizure list witnesses were police officers, indicating non‑compliance with Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS, 2023. The State opposed bail. The High Court, noting the petitioner’s clean record and the procedural irregularities, granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, presence in court, and no tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the driver charged under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018.
- Whether the alleged non‑compliance with Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS, 2023 affects the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s status as driver, not owner, mitigates his liability.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 — s. 30(a), 32(3)
- BNSS, 2023 — s. 103, 105
Subjects
- bail
- excise
- liquor seizure
- driver liability
- procedural lapse
- Bihar Prohibition Act
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 37474 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-170 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Banka
======================================================
Kumit Kumar S/o Rabin Prasad @ Rabin Prasad Yadav Resident of vill-
Tikarampur, P.S- Mufassil, Distt.- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned A.P.P. for the
State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
16.04.2026 in connection with Banka Excise P.S. Case No. 170
of 2026, F.I.R. dated 16.04.2026 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Amendment Act, 2018.
3. Recovery is of 400.140 liters of Indian made
foreign liquor.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. It appears from
the FIR as well as the seizure list that the recovery has been
made from the vehicle in question and altogether 400.140 liters
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 37474 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
of Indian made foreign liquor was recovered from the vehicle in
question and petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle in
question rather the petitioner is driver of the vehicle in question.
It appears from the FIR as well as the seizure list that the seizure
list witnesses are police personnel so there is non-compliance of
Sections 103 and 105 of BNSS, 2023 and the petitioner is in
custody since 16.04.2026.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid fact, petitioner has clean
antecedent, let the petitioner, above named, 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 learned
Special Judge, Exclusive Excise Court-2, Banka in connection
with Banka Excise P.S. Case No. 170 of 2026,,with the
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/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 37474 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
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
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)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.