Patna High Court
Moti Singh @ Brij KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions, holding that the bar under Section 76(2) does not apply where no offence is made out and the seized liquor was not on the petitioner’s property.
Summary
Moti Singh, the petitioner, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act where 15 litres of illicit liquor was seized from an orchard belonging to Lalbabu Singh. The prosecution alleged Singh escaped during a police raid and was identified by locals. The petitioner contended the seizure was not from his land and relied on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) if no offence is made out. The State opposed, citing the petitioner’s similar criminal antecedents. The court, considering the precedent and the fact that the liquor was not on the petitioner’s property, granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and multiple conditions regarding appearance, non‑interference with witnesses, and abstention from further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioner can be held liable for seizure of liquor from land not owned by him.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30
- Section 76(2)
- criminal antecedent
- liquor seizure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37766 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2026 Thana- Vasudeva District- Buxar
======================================================
Moti Singh @ Brij Kumar S/o Late Sukhari Singh R/o Village - Amirpur
Garh, P.S. - Vasudeva, Dist. - Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Dimpal Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 01-07-2026 Heard Mrs. Dimpal Kumari, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP representing the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Vasudeva P.S. Case No. 49 of 2026 for the
offence under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act lodged on 03.05.2026 by the informant, Raju Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on secret information the Police raided the place and though
the managed to escape, 15 liters country made liquor
recovered/seized. The locals gave the name of this petitioner as
the person who managed to escape. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
recovery/seizure is from the orchard of Lalbabu Singh and not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37766 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
2/4
from his own land and only because of criminal antecedent 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 he
has criminal antecedent of the same nature.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that recovery/seizure is from the orchard which do not
belong to the petitioner, 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/-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37766 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
3/4
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Special Excise Court No.2, Buxar in
connection with Vasudeva P.S. Case No. 49 of 2026 subject to
the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the Police
Station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37766 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
4/4
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(vi) the petitioner 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)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.