Patna High Court
Ranjit MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the petitioner was implicated on mere suspicion, had a prior similar offence, and the Full Bench precedent precludes bail in such circumstances.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjit Mahto, applied for anticipatory bail after police recovered 3.78 liters of illicit liquor from his residence in connection with an alleged violation of Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The petitioner argued that no incriminating material was found in his conscious possession and that the charge was based solely on suspicion. The State contended that the liquor was recovered from the petitioner’s house and that he had a prior similar criminal antecedent, citing a Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar which denied anticipatory bail in comparable circumstances. The Court examined whether anticipatory bail could be granted when the accusation rests on suspicion and a prior offence exists. Relying on the Full Bench precedent, the Court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail and rejected the application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused is implicated solely on suspicion and has a prior similar criminal antecedent.
- Whether the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar is binding on the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illicit liquor
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- suspicion
- Full Bench precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41308 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2026 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Ranjit Mahto Son of Jawahar Mahto @ Jawahar Mahato Resident of Village-
Uttari Madhubani, P.S.- Sangrampur, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umanath Mishra, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 06-07-2026 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. As per the prosecution case, 3.78 liters illicit liquor
was recovered from the house of petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that no incriminating material has been recovered from
conscious possession of the petitioner and he is no way
connected with the aforesaid recovery. Petitioner has been made
accused only on suspicion.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that 3.78 liters
illicit liquor was recovered from the house of petitioner and he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41308 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026
2/2
has got one criminal antecedent of similar nature. 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 facts, anticipatory bail
application of the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.