Patna High Court
Tajmul AnsariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
In view of the petitioners’ clean antecedents, lack of conscious possession, non‑ownership of the E‑Rickshaw, and violation of mandatory procedural provisions, the court held that bail must be granted subject to conditions.
Summary
Petitioners Tajmul Ansari and Mukhtar Alam were arrested on 19 April 2026 in connection with an FIR dated 8 May 2026 for alleged offences under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, involving the seizure of 108.520 litres of foreign liquor from an E‑Rickshaw. They contended that they have clean antecedents, were not in conscious possession of the liquor, and do not own the E‑Rickshaw, further alleging that the seizure list witnesses being police officers violated mandatory provisions of BNSS, 2023. The State opposed the bail application. The Court examined the lack of possession, non‑ownership, the petitioners’ clean record, and the procedural lapse, and concluded that these factors warranted the grant of bail. Accordingly, bail was ordered on a bond of Rs 10,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents. The order emphasized that the bail bond should not be delayed for verification purposes.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act given the facts of the case.
- Whether the alleged non‑compliance with mandatory provisions of BNSS, 2023 affects the grant of bail.
- Whether lack of conscious possession and non‑ownership of the vehicle precludes continued detention.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 32(3)
- BNSS, 2023
Subjects
- bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- foreign liquor
- non‑possession
- procedural lapse
- BNSS 2023
- clean antecedents
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42698 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-458 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Kishanganj
======================================================
1. Tajmul Ansari Son of Barku Ansari R/o Vill- City Tegharia Ward no 7,
Thana- Kishanganj, District- Kishanganj
2. Mukhtar Alam @ Mukthar Alam S/o Md Talim R/o Vill- City Tegharia Ward
no 7, Thana- Kishanganj, District- Kishanganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-07-2026 Heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, learned APP for the
State.
2. Petitioners seek bail, who are in custody since
019.04.2026, in connection with Madya Nisedh P.S. Case No.
458 of 2026, giving rise of Special Case No. 463 of 2026, F.I.R.
dated 08.05.2026 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
3. Recovery is of 108.520 litres of foreign liquor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have clean antecedents and they have been falsely
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42698 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026
2/3
implicated in the present case. He further submits that it
appears from the F.I.R. as well as seizure list that nothing has
been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners
rather recovery has been made from the E-Rickshaw in question
and altogether 108.520 litres of foreign liquor was recovered
from the E-Rickshaw in question. It appears from the seizure
list that the seizure list witnesses are police personnel so there is
non-compliance of mandatory provisions of BNSS, 2023 and
the petitioners are in custody since 19.04.2026.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact that the petitioners having clean antecedent and
nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of
the petitioners and petitioners are not the owner of the E-
Rickshaw in question and there is non-compliance of mandatory
provisions of the BNSS, 2023, let the petitioners, above named,
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special
Judge Excise-II, Kishanganj in connection with Madya Nisedh
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42698 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026
3/3
P.S. Case No. 458 of 2026, giving rise of Special Case No. 463
of 2026, subject to the following conditions :-
(1) Petitioners 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 their absence on two consecutive dates without
sufficient reason, their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the
Court below.
(2) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the
witness, 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 petitioners and in case at
any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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.
Ibrar//- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.