Patna High Court
Sudhanshu Kumar @ Sidhu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted because the liquor was not recovered from the petitioners’ conscious possession and there was non‑compliance with statutory seizure provisions.
Summary
The petitioners, Sudhanshu Kumar and Ajay Kumar Pandey, were arrested on 16 April 2026 in connection with a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act for the alleged possession of 36.22 litres of foreign liquor recovered from a vehicle. The petitioners contended that the liquor was not in their conscious possession, they were not owners of the vehicle, and that the seizure was effected by police witnesses in violation of Sections 103 and 105 of the Bihar Narcotic/Excise Seizure Statute (BNSS), 2023. The State opposed bail, arguing that the recovery was not from the petitioners’ possession and that procedural lapses existed. The Court, noting the petitioners’ clean antecedents and the procedural non‑compliance, granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, presence in court, and non‑tampering with evidence. The order also directed the lower court to verify the petitioners’ criminal antecedents and to cancel bail if any concealment is discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the seized contraband was not in the accused’s conscious possession.
- Whether non‑compliance with Sections 103 and 105 of BNSS, 2023 warrants bail.
- Whether the petitioners can be held liable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act despite lack of ownership of the vehicle.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic/Excise Seizure Statute (BNSS), 2023 — s. 103, 105
- Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- bail
- prohibition act
- excise
- procedural lapse
- conscious possession
- foreign liquor
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38020 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2026 Thana- MAKER District- Saran
======================================================
1. Sudhanshu Kumar @ Sidhu Kumar son of Hanuman Thakur Resident of
village -Jagarnathpur PS -Saraiya District -Muzaffarpur
2. Ajay Kumar Pandey @ Golu Pandey Son of Brajram Pandey Resident of
village -Jagarnathpur PS -Saraiya District -Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bishweshwar Ram, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-06-2026 Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Mr. Bishweshwar Ram, learned APP for
the State.
2. Petitioners seek bail, who are in custody since
16.04.2026, in connection with Maker P.S. Case No. 119 of
2026, F.I.R. dated 15.04.2026 registered for the offences
punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition &
Excise Act.
3. Recovery is of 36.22 litres of foreign liquor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have clean antecedents and they have been falsely
implicated in the present case. He further submits that it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38020 of 2026(2) dt.19-06-2026
2/3
appears from the F.I.R. as well as seizure list that nothing has
been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners
rather recovery has been made from the vehicle in question and
petitioners are not the owner of the vehicle in question. It
appears from the F.I.R. as well as 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 petitioners is in
custody since 16.04.2026.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioners and submits that nothing has been recovered from
the conscious possession of the petitioners and petitioners are
not the owner of the vehicle in question and there is non-
compliance of Sections 103 and 105 of BNSS, 2023 .
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact that the petitioners having clean antecedents and
nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of
the petitioners and there is non-compliance of Sections 103 and
105 of the BNSS, 2023, let the petitioners, above named, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned 3rd Exclusive Special Excise Court,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38020 of 2026(2) dt.19-06-2026
3/3
Saran at Chapra in connection with Maker P.S. Case No. 119 of
2026, subject to the following conditions :-
(1) Petitioners 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 their absence on two consecutive dates without
sufficient reason, their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the
Court below.
(2) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the
witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at
any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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.
Ibrar//- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.