Patna High Court
Arun Rai @ Aarun RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to bond, sureties and verification of criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Arun Rai and Suraj Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after a FIR was lodged alleging they possessed 20 litres of liquor and 5.06 litres of beer in their joint family house, violating Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 and Sections 274 and 275 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023. They argued they have clean antecedents, were not arrested at the scene, and that the liquor was stored in a joint family property, making it uncertain whether they had knowledge or control, especially since the 2018 amendment removed the concept of deemed possession. They also contended that the complainant, a chowkidar with whom they have a hostile relationship, failed to inform police earlier, casting doubt on the prosecution's case. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.500 and two sureties, with verification of any criminal antecedents by the trial court, and stipulated that bail could be revoked if antecedents are found.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the circumstances of the alleged liquor possession.
- Whether the petitioners can be deemed to have possession of the liquor under the amended provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the joint family nature of the property negates the presumption of knowledge or control over the liquor.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 274, 275
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a)
- Criminal Procedure Code (as applied to High Court inherent powers) — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- possession of liquor
- Bihar Prohibition Act
- Bihar Excise Act
- joint family property
- criminal antecedent
- Section 30(a)
- Section 274
- Section 275
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38344 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2026 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Arun Rai @ Aarun Ray S/o- Katari Rai @ Kamta Prasad Rai R/v-
Jagdishpur, Ward No. 10, Idkarai Barari, P.S- Raghopur, District- Vaishali
2. Suraj Kumar S/o- Arun Rai @ Aarun Ray R/v- Jagdishpur, Ward No. 10,
Idkarai Barari, P.S- Raghopur, District- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravish Mishra
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramesh Chandra
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 and
Sections 274, 275 of the BNS, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 20 litres of liquor along with 5.06 litres of Beer
from house of the petitioners. It is next submitted that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and the house in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38344 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
2/3
question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged
with certainty that it was petitioner, who had kept the liquor in
the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his
knowledge and after amendment in the Excise Act in the year
2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender
has been done away with and they came to be implicated at the
instance of chowkidar with whom they are on an inimical term.
It is also submitted that if chowkidar was aware of the
involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did
not inform the police prior to institution of the instant FIR
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court
in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No.118/2026, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38344 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
3/3
B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial court
thereafter shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioners
and in the event if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of
even one case, in that event, it would be presumed that
petitioners had concealed their antecedent before this court, as
such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed with respect to those petitioners whose criminal
antecedent does not tally but if after verification the criminal
antecedent as recorded hereinabove tallies with the petitioners in
that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.