Patna High Court
Om Prakash SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner with conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Om Prakash Sah, owner of a godown, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged possession of illicit liquor seized from his premises and nearby locations. He applied for anticipatory bail, asserting he had no knowledge of the liquor, no criminal antecedent, and that the seizure was not from his conscious possession. The State opposed, claiming ownership of the godown. The Court examined whether anticipatory bail could be granted despite the bar in Section 76(2) of the Act, relying on the precedent of Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which allowed such applications when the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence. Considering the petitioner’s clean record and lack of direct involvement, the Court granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions regarding sureties, appearance before police and court, and non‑interference with witnesses or evidence.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2)?
- Does the petitioner’s lack of knowledge and absence of criminal antecedent justify the grant of anticipatory bail?
- Is the petitioner liable for the liquor seized from his godown and nearby premises?
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)
- liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38786 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2026 Thana- PANAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Om Prakash Sah S/O Late Rajendar Sah R/O Village- Ubhawa Sarangpur,
P.O.- Rampur Rudra, P.S.- Panapur, Distt.- Saran at Chapra- 841424.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nityanand, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned APP representing the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Panapur P.S. Case No. 113 of 2026 for the
offence under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act lodged on 10.04.2026 by the informant, Krishna Kumar
Sharma.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on secret information raided the Godown and there is
recovery/seizure of 5 liter spirit from Godown of the petitioner
and when Jai Prakash was arrested who gave the name of this
petitioner. Later, near the bushes of the house of the Mithlesh
Manjhi and Ajay Manjhi, there is another recover of 7.200 liter
foreign liquor. This led to the FIR.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38786 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though he owns the Godown, had no knowledge about the
presence of liquor, his brother got implicated whereafter his
name cropped up, he do not have criminal antecedent.
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 the
Godown belongs to him.
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 anything
recovered from his conscious possession, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38786 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/4
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 2nd Exclusive Special Excise Judge, Saran
at Chapra in connection with Panapur P.S. Case No. 113 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38786 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
4/4
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 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.