Patna High Court
Ankit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, despite the invocation of Section 76(2).
Summary
Ankit Kumar, owner of a CNG tempo, was implicated in a case involving the seizure of 129 litres of foreign liquor under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He argued that the liquor was not recovered from his conscious possession and that he has a clean antecedent, contending that the FIR was fabricated and that his only connection to the case is ownership of the vehicle used by the co‑accused driver. The State opposed anticipatory bail, invoking Section 76(2) of the same Act, which it claimed bars pre‑arrest bail. The Patna High Court, relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, held that anticipatory bail could be granted in the limited circumstances presented. Accordingly, the court ordered that Kumar be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC, including cooperation with the trial and no tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act when the accused is not in conscious possession of the seized liquor.
- Whether Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used by a co‑accused suffices to make the owner an accused liable for bail denial.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- foreign liquor seizure
- vehicle ownership
- bail conditions
- CrPC Section 438
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40480 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2026 Thana- SALIMPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Ankit Kumar Son of Sanjay Ram Resident of Village- Naya Tola Madhopur
(Bakhtiyarpur), P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lal Babu Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur
======================================================
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 Salimpur P.S. Case No. 74 of 2026 registered
for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Recovery is of 129 liters of foreign liquor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has clean antecedent and has falsely been implicated
in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as
alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated. 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
rather the recovery has been made from the CNG tempo and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40480 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
2/4
petitioner has been made an accused in the present case merely
on the ground that petitioner is owner of the tempo in question
and co-accused person, namely, Md. Siraj, who was happened to
be the driver of the tempo was arrested and he has disclosed that
the petitioner is owner of the vehicle in question.
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.
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
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
petitioner has clean antecedent and petitioner has been made an
accused in the present case merely on the ground that petitioner
is owner of the tempo in question, let the petitioner, above
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40480 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
3/4
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 Exclusive Special Judge
Excise Barh (Patna) in connection with Salimpur P.S. Case No.
74 of 2026, 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40480 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
4/4
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
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.