Patna High Court
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjit MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted as mere past criminal antecedent without material evidence is insufficient to deny bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar, feared arrest in a case involving alleged storage and sale of illicit wine under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, after police recovered 15 litres of wine from a bamboo orchard. He argued that no material linked him to the contraband, that the recovery was from an open area, and that his six prior criminal cases, five of which he was on bail, should not alone justify denial of anticipatory bail. The State contended that the petitioner’s criminal antecedents warranted refusal of bail. The Court held that mere past criminal history without specific evidence of participation cannot be the sole ground to deny anticipatory bail, especially when the seizure was from a public place and statutory provisions of the BNSS were allegedly breached. Consequently, the Court ordered that the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail if arrested or surrendered, subject to a Rs 10,000 bail bond, two sureties (one of whom must be a close family member), and compliance with Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be denied solely on the basis of the petitioner’s past criminal antecedents.
- Whether Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 applies to the petitioner’s situation.
- Whether the statutory provisions of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS were complied with during the raid.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Narcotic and Security Statutes (BNSS) — s. 103, 105
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a), 76(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal antecedent
- illicit wine
- prohibition act
- excise law
- bail conditions
- statutory compliance
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43987 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2026 Thana- HASANPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjit Mahto Son of Rajendra Mahto Resident of village -
Goriyari, Police Station - Hasanpur, District - Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahendra Pratap, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 08-07-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 106 of 2026, registered for the
offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Acting on a tip off regarding storage and selling of
illicit wine, the police conducted raid in a bamboo orchard and
recovered 15 litres of illicit wine.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
only on account of past criminal antecedent of identical nature
his name has been implicated in this case without there being
any cogent material suggesting his complicity in the crime. In
fact all the six cases in which the petitioner has been made
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43987 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
2/3
accused is nothing, but a mala fide attitude of the police officials
and moreover, in out of six cases, the petitioner is on bail in five
cases. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from
the conscious and constructive possession of the petitioner and,
as such, rigors provided under Section 76(2) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 is not
applicable. Moreover, there is serious defiance of the statutory
provisions of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that
petitioner bears six criminal antecedent and on this score alone
the petitioner does not deserve the anticipatory bail.
6. Regard being had to the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the alleged
recovery has been take place from bamboo orchard, which is an
open place easily accessible to all coupled with the defiance of
statutory provisions of the BNSS and the fact that mere criminal
antecedent of the petitioner cannot be the sole ground for
rejecting anticipatory bail unless there is a some materials
suggesting the complicity in the crime, let the petitioner above
named be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the court below within a period of four weeks from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43987 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
3/3
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Exclusive Court of Learned Special Judge Excise-I, Samastipur
in connection with Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 106 of 2026, subject
to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the further condition that
one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the
petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.