Patna High Court
Naga RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court denied regular bail, holding that the absence of a forensic science laboratory report on the cause of death precludes granting bail at this stage.
Summary
Petitioner Naga Rai was arrested in connection with a case alleging that he sold illicit liquor which was consumed by Pramod Yadav, who later died in hospital. The prosecution alleges offences under several sections of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The petitioner contended he is innocent, that the liquor was sold to him by a third‑party Khalifa Yadav, and that the autopsy showed no ante‑mortem injuries, but the forensic science laboratory (FSL) report was not yet available. The State opposed regular bail, arguing that the cause of death remained unclear without the FSL report. The High Court, after hearing both sides, refused bail on the ground that the missing forensic report precluded a definitive opinion on the death, but allowed the petitioner to renew the bail application once the report is received.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted when the cause of death is unclear and the forensic report is pending.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the sale of illicit liquor warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 105, 110, 111(2), 123, 274, 275, 61(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 33, 34(a), 34(b), 34(b)(i), 34(b)(ii), 34(b)(iii), 34(b)(iv), 36
Subjects
- regular bail
- forensic report
- cause of death
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- illicit liquor
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42217 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2026 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Naga Rai S/o Late Jyotik Rai Resident of village - Shankar Saraiya, P.S.-
Turkauliya, Distt.- 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. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 01-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in
connection with Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 174 of 2026 instituted
for the offence under Sections 274, 275, 123, 105, 110, 111(2),
61(2) of BNS and Sections 33, 34(a), 34(b), 34(b)(i), 34(b)(ii),
34(b) (iii), 34(b) (iv) and 36 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that one Dinesh
Yadav and Pramod Yadav have consumed liquor at the house of
this petitioner after that, they went to their house. On next day,
Pramod was not feeling well and was rushed to Sadar Hospital,
Motihari and it was informed that other persons also consumed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42217 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
2/3
liquor with Pramod Yadav and they were also having health
issues and were rushed to Sadar Hospital, Motihari. During
course of treatment, Pramod Yadav died.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has further
submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it is clear that informant
Dinesh Yadav and others have also consumed liquor but only
Pramod Yadav has died. It has also been submitted that during
course of investigation, one Khalifa Yadav has given his
confessional statement and he has stated that he has sold the
liquor to this petitioner. From perusal of the postmortem report,
it transpires that the doctor conducting the autopsy of the
deceased has not found any ante-mortem injury on the person of
the deceased and the viscera was preserved. Learned counsel
has further submitted that the liquor which was being consumed
by the deceased was purchased by the petitioner from Khalifa
and Khalifa himself has purchased the liquor from Sunil.
Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since
04.04.2026.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42217 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
3/3
and considering the fact that in this case, the Viscera was
preserved but FSL report is not available as yet. In such,
circumstances, the cause of death is not clear and without the
FSL report, there can be no definite opinion regarding death, as
such, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this
stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
7. However, the petitioner may be at liberty to renew
his prayer for bail after receipt of the FSL report.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
Sneha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.