Patna High Court
Sumit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted as the FIR does not substantiate an offence against the petitioner and the Full Bench precedent permits bail despite Section 76(2).
Summary
The petitioner, Sumit Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after police intercepted a bag of foreign liquor and arrested two others who identified him as the third person involved. The petitioner argued that no liquor was recovered from his possession and that his prior criminal record was the only basis for his implication. The State opposed, relying on the identification by the arrested individuals. The Court, relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, held that anticipatory bail can be granted despite the bar under Section 76(2) when the FIR does not establish an offence against the applicant. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a set of conditions, including bond, sureties, regular appearances before police and court, and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2).
- Whether the material on record establishes the commission of an offence by the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent justifies denial 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)
- seizure of liquor
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43867 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2026 Thana- KIUL RAIL P.S. District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Sumit Kumar S/o Sunil Mandal R/o vill - Dalsinagara Tola, Garhibishanpur,
P.S. and Distt.- Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, 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 Rail P.S. Kiul Case No. 64 of 2026 for the
offence under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police upon secret
information, reached the place and intercepted a black colour
bag containing 15 liter foreign liquor at Kiul Junction. Sanjeet
Kumar and Sonu Kumar were arrested and they gave the name
of the third person who escaped as this petitioner. This led to the
FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession and
only because he has one criminal antecedent, got implicated.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43867 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
2/4
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
those arrested named him.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that recovery/seizure has been shown from Sanjeet Kumar
and Sonu Kumar, nothing from his conscious possession, 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 District and Additional Sessions Judge-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43867 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
3/4
VII-cum-Ananya Special Excise Court-II, Lakhisarai in
connection with Rail P.S. Kiul Case No. 64 of 2026 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 appear before the concerned
police station every fortnight for six months to mark his
attendance and after the end of the period, the certificate shall be
submitted before the Trial Court failing which steps shall be
taken for the cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) 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;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43867 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
4/4
(vi) 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.