Patna High Court
Anirudh Dhangad @ Anirudh MahatoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Anirudh Dhangad, filed a pre‑arrest (anticipatory) bail petition fearing arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after 20 litres of illicit liquor were recovered from his hut. The prosecution alleged that the liquor was illicit and that the petitioner had a prior criminal antecedent, seeking denial of bail. The petitioner’s counsel argued that no incriminating material was found in his conscious possession and that he was falsely implicated. The State relied on a Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar (2019 PLJR 1089) to contend that anticipatory bail should not be granted in such cases. Applying the precedent, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail petition, holding the petitioner not entitled to the relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar precludes grant of anticipatory bail in similar circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- illicit liquor
- pre‑arrest bail
- Full Bench precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39760 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2026 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Anirudh Dhangad @ Anirudh Mahato S/O Amerika Dhangad @ Amerika
Mahato Resident of Village - Khairwa Mothi, Police Station- Paharpur,
District - East Champaran at Motihari
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 29-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
State .
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for
the offence punishable under section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act.
3 . Prosecution case is that 20 liters of illicit liquor
was recovered from the hut of this petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been
implicated in this case. No incriminating material has been
recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and he
is in no way connected with the aforesaid recovery.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39760 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
2/2
recovery has been made from the hut of the petitioner and has
one criminal antecedent. He further submits that petitioner is not
entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail in view of Full
Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Vinay
Yadav vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089
(F.B.).
6. Considering the aforesaid decision of this Court,
this pre-arrest bail petition is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Koushik/Sanjay-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.