Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39383 of 2026
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRA District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Rahul Kumar son of Ravindra Singh @ Ravindra Prasad Resident of Village -
                 Hawaldar Chak, Ps- Dhanarua, Dist- Patna

                                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
                 The State of Bihar bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Aditya Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Akbar Ali, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   23-06-2026                  Heard Mr. Aditya Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for

                   the petitioner and Mr. Akbar Ali, learned APP for the State.

                                2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                   18.04.2026, in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 105 of 2025,

                   F.I.R. dated 15.12.2025 registered for the offences punishable

                   under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act.

                                3. Recovery is of 250.00 litres of illicit liquor.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the

                   present case. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R.

                   as well as seizure list that recovery has been made from the

                   Tempo in question and the petitioner has been made accused in

                   the present case merely on the ground that the petitioner is the

                   owner of the Tempo in question. In fact, the petitioner had given
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39383 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
                                            2/3




          the Tempo in question to Super Cloud Private Limited as per

          agreement dated 17.12.2024 and petitioner has no concern at all

          with the alleged recovery of illicit liquor. It appears from the

          seizure list that the seizure list witnesses are police personnel so

          there is non compliance of Section 103 and 105 of the B.N.S.S.

          and the petitioner is in custody since 18.04.2026.

                       5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

          State has vehemently opposed the prayer for              bail of the

          petitioner and submits that the petitioner carries one more case

          of similar nature other than the present one.

                       6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

          and the fact that nothing has been recovered from the conscious

          possession of the petitioner as well as there is non compliance

          of Section 103 and 105 of the B.N.S.S. , let the petitioner, above

          named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

          10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like

          amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special

          Excise Judge-2, Patna, in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No.

          105 of 2025, subject to the following conditions :-

                       (1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be

          properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court

          and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39383 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
                                                           3/3




                         on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

                         reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

                                      (2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

                         witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

                         for cancellation of bail.

                                      (3) And, further condition that the court below shall

                         verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at

                         any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his

                         criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for

                         cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner.             However, the

                         acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

                         shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of

                         verification.



                                                                       (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-

U          T