Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Rahul Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after 154.5 litres of illicit foreign liquor was seized from co-accused Vivek Kumar, who named the petitioner. The petitioner argued he had no incriminating material in his possession, no prior similar offences, and was implicated solely on the co-accused's statement. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court examined the lack of direct evidence against the petitioner and the nature of the accusation, concluding that anticipatory bail was appropriate. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act where the only evidence is the co-accused's statement.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • Section 30(a)
  • Section 482(2)
  • illicit liquor
  • co-accused testimony
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39567 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-958 Year-2025 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad
                 ======================================================
                 Rahul Kumar son of Arjun Yadav Resident of village- Kaldih (Kaldih) Ps-
                 Parasbigha, Dist- Jehanabad

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner     :        Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate
                 For the State          :        Ms. Pushpa Sinha.1, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   23-06-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

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

                   Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. As per prosecution case, 154.500 liters illicit

                   foreign liquor was recovered from the room of co-accused

                   Vivek Kumar who disclosed the name of this petitioner.

                                4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

                   behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has

                   committed no offence. No incriminating article has been

                   recovered from conscious possession of this petitioner and he

                   has falsely been implicated in this case merely on the basis of

                   disclosure made by apprehended co-accused person. Save and
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39567 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
                                                         2/2




                       except confessional statement, there is no material on record to

                       show the complicity of this petitioner in the alleged occurrence.

                       Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent of similar nature.

                                     5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

                       opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the

                       petitioner.

                                     6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

                       case, nature of accusation and the fact that no incriminating

                       article has been recovered from conscious possession of this

                       petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the

                       petitioner is allowed.

                                     7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within

                       a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named

                       petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.

                       10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

                       each to the satisfaction of learned Special Excise Judge 1st,

                       Jehanabad in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 958

                       of 2025, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2)

                       of the B.N.S.S..



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.