Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar @ Rahul RawatversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted because the seizure was from an open place and did not establish conscious possession, and the FIR did not disclose a cognizable offence under the Act.
Summary
The petitioners, Rahul Kumar and Nitish Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, where police seized a 30‑litre liquor sack from an open place. They argued that the seizure did not amount to possession and that the FIR was based solely on information from locals, not on any substantive offence. The State contended that the locals had identified the petitioners, justifying the charge. Relying on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which allows anticipatory bail despite Section 76(2) if no offence is made out, the Court examined the nature of the seizure and the lack of conscious possession. The Court concluded that the petitioners were not in possession of the contraband and granted them anticipatory bail with stringent conditions. The order directed them to furnish bail bonds and comply with reporting and conduct requirements, with bail liable to cancellation for non‑compliance.
Issues considered
- Whether the seizure of liquor from an open place constitutes possession sufficient to attract liability under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether an application for anticipatory bail can be entertained despite the bar under Section 76(2) of the Act when the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- possession
- seizure
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37737 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2026 Thana- SAHAJITPUR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Rawat Son of Jayaprakash Ravat Resident of village-
Shreepur, Ps- Sahajitpur Dist- Saran at Chapra
2. Nitish Kumar @ Nitesh Rawat @ Nitish Rawat Son of Umesh Ravat
Resident of village- Sitab Diyara, Ps- Rivilganj, Dist- Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 01-07-2026 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner and the State
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Sahajitpur P.S. Case No. 91 of 2026 for the
offence under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act lodged on 30.03.2026 by the informant, Dinesh Paswan.
3. As per the prosecution story, the police on secret
information raided the place and though the accused managed to
escape, from a sack 30 liters country made liquor
recovered/seized, the locals gave the name which followed the
F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37737 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
2/4
bare perusal of the F.I.R. would show that recovery/seizure is
from an open place and not from their conscious possession.
Further, only because of the criminal antecedent, they got
implicated.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in
2019 (2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an
application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar
Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar
under Section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation
made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made
out.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that the
locals gave the name before the Police.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that the fact that recovery/seizure is from an open place, not
from their conscious possession, in that background, this Court
is inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail with
conditions.
8. Let the petitioners be released on bail in the event
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37737 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
3/4
of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the
receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Court of Special Judge (Excise) -2, Saran
at Chapra in connection with Sahajitpur P.S. Case No. 91 of
2026 subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioners who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners shall be appearing before the Police
Station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioners shall appear before the concerned
police station every fortnight for six months to mark his
attendance and after the end of the period, the certificate shall be
submitted before the Trial Court failing which steps shall be
taken for the cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37737 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
4/4
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(vi) the petitioners shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
munindra/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.