Patna High Court
Irshad Alam @ Irshad AzamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
Pre‑arrest bail was denied because the petitioner’s claim of sale was not substantiated and his possible involvement in the offence could not be ruled out.
Summary
The petitioner, Irshad Alam, applied for pre‑arrest bail after a police case was registered for the alleged recovery of 604.8 litres of illicit foreign liquor from a vehicle registered in his name. He contended that he had sold the vehicle to Syed Hamid Wali on 29‑10‑2024, before the FIR dated 17‑12‑2024, and that he had taken steps to pay the fine after learning the vehicle had not been transferred. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the sale deed’s authenticity was doubtful and that the petitioner had not complied with the transfer provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, leaving the possibility of his involvement in the smuggling. The Court examined the sale letter, the FIR, and the lack of formal transfer, concluding that the petitioner’s claim was not sufficiently proven and his involvement could not be ruled out. Consequently, the application for pre‑arrest bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail despite claiming to have sold the vehicle before the FIR was lodged.
- Whether the absence of a formal transfer of vehicle ownership under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, affects the grant of bail.
- Whether the alleged involvement in the smuggling of prohibited liquor justifies denial of pre‑arrest bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- smuggling
- Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
- illicit liquor
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43770 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2024 Thana- Panapur District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Irshad Alam @ Irshad Azam S/o Ghousul Ajam Ansari Resident of Village-
Bathua Bazar, P.S.- Qazipur, District- Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhyanand, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 08-07-2026 Heard Mr. Abhyanand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Panapur Kariyat P.S. Case No. 163 of 2024 registered for
the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act as amended up-to-date.
3. Allegation is of recovery of 604.8 litres of illicit
foreign liquor from a vehicle bearing Registration No.
BR28AA7770 registered in the name of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner had already sold his vehicle
on 29.10.2024 to one Syed Hamid Wali, when a confiscation
notice was issued to him on 10.06.2025 and he had taken steps
to pay the fine subsequent to his knowledge that the vehicle has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43770 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
2/2
not been transferred in the name of the buyer, who was in
possession of the said vehicle but he has not been arrayed as an
accused in the FIR. On these grounds, petitioner seeks to be
released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having perused the FIR and the
document brought on record by the petitioner. The sale letter
duly notarized dated 29.10.2024 and the date of the FIR is
17.12.2024. The very genuinnity of the sale letter appears to be
in question. Even after the sale of the vehicle, the petitioner has
not taken any steps in accordance with the provision of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and his involvement in smuggling/sale
of prohibited item in the State of Bihar cannot be ruled out.
Accordingly, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on pre-
arrest bail.
7. The present bail application is dismissed.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.