Patna High Court
Raj Kishor NutversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as the FIR does not make out an offence against the petitioners and no liquor was recovered from them, subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Raj Kishor Nut and Raju Nut, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, where an FIR alleged they were involved in the sale of 20 litres of country‑made liquor seized during a police raid. The petitioners argued that no liquor was recovered from their possession or premises and relied on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) if the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence. The State opposed, citing the petitioners’ criminal antecedents. The Court, after considering the submissions and the precedent, concluded that the FIR did not establish a concrete offence against the petitioners and, with an undertaking to cooperate, granted anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions. The order directed the petitioners to furnish a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and comply with attendance, non‑interference with witnesses, and non‑commission of further offences.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2) when the FIR does not disclose a specific offence?
- Does the absence of seizure from the petitioners' possession or premises justify granting anticipatory bail?
- What conditions may be imposed to ensure the petitioners' cooperation with the investigation?
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- prohibition act
- section 30
- section 76(2)
- seizure of liquor
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38781 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-204 Year-2026 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran
======================================================
1. Raj Kishor Nut S/o Budhu Nut R/o Village- Pithaghat, Police station-
Garkha, District- Saran
2. Raju Nut @ Raju Nat S/o Dewa Nut R/o Village- Pithaghat, Police station-
Garkha, District- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sachida Nand Rai, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Sharda Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Garkha P.S. Case No. 204 of 2026 for the
offence under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act lodged on 24.02.2026 by the informant, Manish Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that the Police on secret information about selling of country
made liquor by Raj Kishor Nut and Raju Nut, raided the place
and there is recovery/seizure of 20 liter country made liquor.
This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that only
because of criminal antecedent, the Police repeatedly implicates
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38781 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/4
them. The fact remains that a perusal of the F.I.R. would show
that nothing has been recovered either from their conscious
possession or their houses rather from outside, if granted relief,
they shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners 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
they have 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 nothing has been recovered from their houses, an
undertaking has been given that they shall not be indulging in
any criminal activity and cooperating in the investigation, in that
background, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege
of anticipatory bail with conditions.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38781 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/4
8. Let the petitioners 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 Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Exclusive Special Court Excise Act-I, Saran at Chapra in
connection with Garkha P.S. Case No. 204 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38781 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
4/4
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)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.