Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

SANJEEV SAURABHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The Court confirmed the earlier provisional bail order, finding no reason to revoke it.

Summary

The petitioner, Sanjeev Saurabh, was arrested in connection with the seizure of 172.80 litres of foreign liquor and charged under IPC sections 272, 273, 414 and 34 as well as sections 30 and 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He contended that he was merely a labourer with no knowledge or control over the liquor and had no prior criminal record. He had been in custody since 1 June 2021 but was granted provisional bail by a coordinate bench of the Patna High Court on 20 April 2022, which he has not misused. The State opposed his fresh bail application, arguing that the case remained pending. The Court noted that the provisional bail had already been granted and there was no allegation of its misuse, and therefore confirmed the earlier bail order. Consequently, the bail application was disposed of, leaving the provisional bail in force.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the offences under the IPC and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
  • Whether the earlier provisional bail order should be confirmed in the absence of any breach of bail conditions.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • provisional bail
  • liquor smuggling
  • IPC
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41371 of 2021
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-380 Year-2021 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur
                  ======================================================
                  Sanjeev Saurabh S/O Sanjay Thakur R/O Village-Madhubani, P.S-Sadar,
                  District-Muzaffarpur.

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

                                                         ... ... Opposite Party/s
                  ======================================================
                  Appearance :
                  For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Virendra Kumar, Adv.
                  For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
                  ======================================================
                  CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                        ORAL ORDER

16   23-02-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                    APP for the State.

                                   2. A prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the

                    petitioner in connection with Saraiya P.S. Case no.380 of 2021

                    registered under sections 272, 273, 414 and 34 of IPC and

                    Section 30 and 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                 3. There is a recovery of 172.80 liters of foreign

                    liquor from a Truck and two pick-up vans.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no

                    recovery has been made from the conscious possession of the

                    petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner is merely a labourer

                    and has no concern whatsoever with the alleged liquor nor has

                    he been involved in any trade relating to liquor. The petitioner

                    has no criminal antecedent and was in custody since 01.06.2021
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41371 of 2021(16) dt.23-02-2026
                                                          2/2




                        and thereafter was granted provisional bail by a co-ordinate

                        Bench of this Court on 20.04.2022. It has further been submitted

                        that petitioner through out remained on provisional bail and has

                        never misused the privilege of bail. Learned counsel for the

                        petitioner further submits that other co-accused persons have

                        already been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court.

                                     5. The application for bail is opposed by learned

                        A.P.P. for the State.

                                     6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and

                        circumstances of the case and especially considering that fact

                        that provisional bail was granted way back in the year 2022 and

                        the bail application is of the year 2021 and there is no allegation

                        that petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail,

                        interim/provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order

                        dated 20.04.2022 stands confirmed.

                                     7. The application stands disposed of.



                                                  (Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-

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.