Rahul Sah @ Rahul Kumar GondversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39437 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-567 Year-2025 Thana- KUCHAIKOTE District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Rahul Sah @ Rahul Kumar Gond S/o Yogendra Sah Resident of Village
                 -Kuchaikote, P.S- Kuchaikote ,District -Gopalganj

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Shaheen Begum
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   02-07-2026                         Heard    learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                  2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 567 of 2025

                   registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of

                   Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                 3. Recovery is of altogether 161.4 liters of country

                   made liquor.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case on the

                   basis of disclosure made by apprehended co-accused person,

                   namely, Sachin Kumar Yadav. He further submits that it appears

                   from the F.I.R and seizure list that nothing has been recovered

                   from the conscious possession of the petitioner and as per the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39437 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
                                            2/4




          allegation as alleged in the FIR the petitioner and other co-

          accused persons have fled away from the place of occurrence

          and altogether 161.4 liters of country made liquor was recovered

          from the place of occurrence. It is next submitted that except the

          disclosure made by apprehended co-accused nothing has come

          during the investigation to suggest the involvement of the

          petitioner in the present occurrence. It is next submitted that

          there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections

          103 and 105 of BNSS, 2023.

                        5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

          vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

          petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of

          the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the

          pre-arrest bail would not be maintainable. Apart from that

          petitioner has antecedent of two cases other than the present

          case but fairly submits that the cases which are pending are not

          pertaining to excise matters and the petitioner is on bail in the

          pending matters.

                          6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full

          Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar

          reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid

          down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39437 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
                                            3/4




          behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant

          of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of

          counsel for the petitioner.

                          7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been

          recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the

          name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of disclosure

          made by apprehended co-accused person, namely, Sachin

          Kumar Yadav , let the petitioner, above named, in the event of

          his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of

          thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on

          bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)

          with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

          the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV-Cum-

          Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court-II, Gopalganj in

          connection with Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 567 of 2025, subject

          to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code

          of Criminal Procedure and with other 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 on his absence on two consecutive dates without

          sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39437 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
                                                       4/4




                     below.

                                     2. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

                     witnesses, 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 antecedent, 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)
Gaurav Sinha/-

U      T