Patna High Court
Bittu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail may be granted as the FIR does not establish an offence under the Act and the petitioner’s prior antecedent does not bar relief, subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Bittu Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after police, acting on secret information, seized 15 litres of illicit liquor away from his residence and filed an FIR. The petitioner argued that no liquor was recovered from his house or possession and that he would cooperate with the investigation, despite having a prior criminal antecedent. The State opposed the bail on the ground of the petitioner’s criminal record. Relying on the Patna High Court Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar (2019 PLJR 1089), which held that anticipatory bail can be granted despite the bar in Section 76(2) if the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence, the court found no material linking the petitioner to the seized liquor. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and six specific conditions regarding sureties, cooperation with police, regular court appearances, and non‑interference with witnesses. The bail order is to be executed by the Exclusive Special Judge, Excise, Samastipur.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the absence of seizure from the petitioner’s possession or residence justifies anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 76(2)
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
- seizure of illicit liquor
- secret raid
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39068 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2026 Thana- HASANPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Bittu Kumar Son of Chandradev Mahto Resident of Ward No. 15, Girdharpur
Ahilwar, Ahilwara, P.O.- Ahilwar, P.S.- Hasanpur, District- Samastipur, Bihar-
848205.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Kunwar, Advocate
Mr. Abhinav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 106 of 2026 for the
offence under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police, on secret
information, raided the place and there is recovery/seizure of 15
liters of country made liquor. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
recovery/seizure is far away from the house, only because he has
one criminal antecedent, got implicated and if granted relief, he
shall be diligently cooperating in trial/investigation.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39068 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
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 he
has 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 his conscious
possession or from his house, 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 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 Judge – I, Excise, Samastipur in
connection with Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 106 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39068 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
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,
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)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.