Patna High Court
Ritik Kumar Mahto @ Ritik KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as no offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act was made out against the petitioner.
Summary
Ritik Kumar Mahto sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged possession of illicit liquor and a mobile phone recovered from a hut. He contended that the hut did not belong to him, he had no criminal antecedent, and his only connection was the mobile left there. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, he argued that anticipatory bail is permissible despite the bar in section 76(2) if no offence is made out. The State opposed, asserting that the mobile’s presence indicated his involvement in illicit liquor trade. The Court, considering the lack of ownership, clean record, and the cited precedent, granted anticipatory bail with a set of conditions and directed release upon arrest or surrender within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in section 76(2) when the alleged facts do not constitute an offence?
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged connection to the seized liquor and mobile establishes liability under section 30(a) of the Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedent and non‑ownership of the hut justify 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(a)
- section 76(2)
- illicit liquor
- mobile phone seizure
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38777 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2026 Thana- MORO District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Ritik Kumar Mahto @ Ritik Kumar S/O Kapil Mahto R/O Vill.-
Mohammadpur, P.s.- Moro, Dist.- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Jyoti Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard Mrs. Jyoti Kumari, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP
representing the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Moro P.S. Case No. 22 of 2026 for the offence
under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
lodged on 03.03.2026 by the informant, Sajeev Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on secret information raided a hut and there is
recovery/seizure of 6 liters country made liquor and and mobile
which was having the name of the petitioner. This led to the
FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38777 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/4
neither the hut from which the recovery has been made belongs
to him nor he has criminal antecedent, only due to visit where
he left the mobile, 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 his
mobile was present and he was indulging in the illicit liquor
selling.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that he do not have criminal antecedent nor the hut belongs
to him, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38777 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/4
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 Excise Court-II,
Darbhanga in connection with Moro P.S. Case No. 22 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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38777 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
4/4
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
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.