Patna High Court
Uday Kumar @ Uday MandalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
In the absence of any material beyond the co‑accused’s uncorroborated statement and given the petitioner’s fair antecedent, the court granted pre‑arrest bail subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Uday Kumar, sought pre‑arrest bail in a case (Sonki P.S. Case No. 45 of 2026) alleging violation of Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for supplying illicit wine recovered from a raid on Mithun Kumar Sah’s house. The co‑accused claimed the liquor originated from the petitioner, but the petitioner argued that this oral allegation is inadmissible, that the police failed to comply with Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS and did not produce videographic evidence of the seizure, and that no material attracted the stringent provisions of Section 76(2) of the Prohibition Act. The State opposed bail, contending the petitioner’s involvement. The court, noting the lack of corroborative evidence and the petitioner’s clean antecedent, granted bail on the condition of a Rs 10,000 bond with two sureties, one of whom must be a close family member, and subject to Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether the co‑accused’s oral statement implicating the petitioner is admissible for bail considerations
- Whether non‑compliance with Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS and absence of videographic evidence render the material insufficient
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act given the lack of substantive evidence
- Whether conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita apply to the bail order
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act (BNSS) — s. 103, 105
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- illicit liquor
- prohibition law
- excise law
- evidentiary standards
- co‑accused testimony
- Section 30(a)
- Section 76(2)
- Section 482(2)
- BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40468 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2026 Thana- Sonki District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Uday Kumar @ Uday Mandal S/O Lala Mandal Resident of Village-
Basudevpur, Police Station- Sonki, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 01-07-2026 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Sonki P.S. Case No. 45 of 2026, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act – 2016/2022 (As amended).
3. Acting on a tip off regarding storage of illicit wine,
the police conducted raid in the house of one ‘Mithun Kumar
Sah’ and in course of search, recovered 8.100 liters of Indian
made foreign liquor. The apprehended person disclosed that he
got the liquor from the petitioner.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has neither any concern with the alleged recovered
illicit wine nor the place, from where the recovery has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40468 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
2/3
been made. The disclosure of the name of the petitioner by the
co-accused, in any view of the manner is not admissible in the
eyes of law, besides there is no compliance of Sections 103 and
105 of the BNSS, as both the witnesses are police officials and
no videography of search and seizure was made. The petitioner
bears fair antecedent and submits that there is no cogent
materials, which attracts the rigors provided under Section 76(2)
of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
opposed the pre-arrest bail application.
6. Regard being had to the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and considering the materials available on
record, as also the fact that save and except the disclosure made
by the co-accused person, there is no material suggesting the
complicity of the petitioner in crime, besides his fair antecedent,
let the petitioner above named be released on bail, in the event
of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of
this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Excise Court-I,
Darbhanga in connection with Sonki P.S. Case No. 45 of 2026,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40468 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
3/3
subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the further
condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family
members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.