Patna High Court
Rajeev KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as the FIR does not establish a prima facie case under section 30(a) and the precedent allows such relief despite Section 76(2).
Summary
Petitioner Rajeev Kumar, a police officer, was implicated in a FIR under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly siphoning foreign liquor from seized cartons. He applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the allegation was false and that the bar under section 76(2) of the Act should not apply where the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence. The State opposed, contending that the officer had indeed misappropriated the liquor. Relying on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which permits anticipatory bail despite the statutory bar if the FIR does not establish an offence, the Court granted anticipatory bail with strict conditions. The order directs the petitioner to surrender within four weeks, furnish a bail bond, and comply with conditions relating to appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and refraining from further offences.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2) when the FIR does not establish a prima facie offence?
- Do the allegations in the FIR constitute an offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act?
- Should the petitioner’s status as a police officer and lack of criminal antecedents influence the grant of anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- section 30(a)
- section 76(2)
- police officer
- siphoning seized liquor
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43854 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-2025 Thana- BARHARA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Rajeev Kumar S/o Mahesh Kumar Mahesh Resident of Village- Chauki, P.S.-
Sahebpur Kamal, District- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramesh Chandra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 08-07-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Barhara P.S. Case No. 137 of 2025 for the offence
under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that the foreign liquor was earlier seized and Barhara P.S. Case
No. 135 of 2025 lodged later. The allegation is at the petitioner
who was posted there along with other co-accused, managed to
siphon of 17.25 liter as also 12 liter of foreign liquor from the
seized cartoons. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only
due to rivalry between the parties and the accused were having
inimical terms as he had seized the vehicle, the false implication
has been made. He is a Police Officer and has to face the music
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43854 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
2/3
both on the criminal as also the civil side.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the
case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in 2019 (2)
PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an application for
anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar Excise and
Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar under Section
76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation made in the FIR, no
offence under the said provision is made out.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that
despite being the Police official, he managed to siphon of the
seized liquor.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that he is a Police Officer having no criminal antecedent, FIR
is there, he shall be facing the trial, in that background, this Court
is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail with
conditions.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt
of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned 1st Exclusive Special Excise Court, Bhojpur, Ara in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43854 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
3/3
connection with Barhara P.S. Case No. 137 of 2025 subject to the
following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall be appearing before the Police
Station as and when required for co-operating in the investigation;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail
bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.