Patna High Court
SANTOSH MUKHIYAversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail may be granted despite the Section 76(2) bar if the FIR does not make out an offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
Summary
Santosh Mukhiya applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act following a motorcycle accident that led to the seizure of 3.5 litres of country-made liquor. He argued that he had no conscious possession of the liquor and that his criminal antecedent and ownership of the motorcycle were the only reasons for his implication. The State opposed the bail on the ground of his prior criminal record. Relying on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which held that anticipatory bail can be granted despite the bar under Section 76(2) if the FIR does not establish an offence, the court granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions. The order directed the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and comply with multiple attendance and conduct requirements.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2) when the FIR does not establish an offence?
- Does the petitioner’s criminal antecedent preclude the grant of anticipatory bail?
- Is seizure of liquor from a vehicle involved in an accident sufficient to constitute possession for the offence under Section 30(a)?
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 76(2)
- possession
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37755 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-224 Year-2026 Thana- BIRAUL District- Darbhanga
======================================================
SANTOSH MUKHIYA S/o Late Ram Lakhan Mukhiya Resident of Village-
Hathi, Police Station- Biraul, District- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 01-07-2026 Heard Mr. Sujata Kumari, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending his arrest in
connection with Biraul P.S. Case No. 224 of 2026 for the offence
under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act lodged
on 20.04.2026 by the informant, Jay Narayan Yadav.
3. As per the prosecution story, the police intercepted
the motorcycle which was also have met with an accident with a
four wheeler and from it, there is a recovery/seizure of 3.500 liters
of country made liquor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only
because he has criminal antecedent and owns the Motorcycle, got
implicated. Actually, after the collision, only to implicate and seize
the motorcycle, the present case has been lodged.
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)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37755 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
2/3
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 he
has criminal antecedent.
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 nothing has been recovered from his conscious
possession, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend
him the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event 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) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned Exclusive Special Judge (Excise Act) -II, Darbhanga in
connection with Biraul P.S. Case No. 224 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37755 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
3/3
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
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.