Patna High Court
Ram Ranvijay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
Ownership of a vehicle, without evidence of possession or participation in the offence, does not justify denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Ranvijay Kumar, was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 30(a) and 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 after police recovered two litres of foreign liquor from a Maruti Suzuki Alto that he owned. He contended that he was not named in the FIR and that the vehicle had been sold to Gyanendra Bibhuti on 16‑02‑2026, a deed of agreement being placed on record. The State argued that the use of the petitioner’s vehicle in the offence indicated his involvement and opposed bail. The Court noted that ownership alone, without proof of possession or participation, does not establish culpability, especially given the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the sale deed. Accordingly, the Court granted bail on the condition of a Rs.20,000 bond with two sureties, one of whom must be a close family member, and directed surrender within four weeks. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether mere ownership of a vehicle used in a prohibited liquor offence makes the owner liable under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
- Whether bail should be granted in the absence of material linking the petitioner to the alleged offence.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 — s. 30(a), 37, 76(2)
Subjects
- bail
- vehicle ownership
- prohibition act
- excise law
- intoxication
- section 482
- section 76
- FIR
- antecedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44025 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-145 Year-2026 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya
======================================================
Ram Ranvijay Kumar Son of Prabhu Singh Resident of Mohalla - Magadh
Colony, Road No. - 11, P.S. - Magadh Medical, District - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahmad Ali, 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 Sherghati P.S. Case No. 145/2026, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 37 of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. The police in course of vehicle checking,
intercepted a Maruti Suzuki Alto car bearing registration no.
BR02S 8575 and apprehended five persons who were sitting in
the car in an intoxicated position. In course of such, two liters
Indian made foreign liquor was also recovered from the vehicle.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner was not even named in the FIR and only on
account of he being shown as owner of the vehicle in question,
his name has been implicated in this case. In fact the vehicle in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44025 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
2/3
question has already been sold to one Gyanendra Bibhuti on
16.02.2026 itself; the photocopy of deed of agreement is placed
on record as Annexure P/2. It is further contended that the
petitioner has never been involved in any such activities and he
carries a fair antecedent. Since there is no cogent material which
suggest the complicity of the petitioner in the crime nor any
recovery has been made in the conscious or constructive
possession of the petitioner and, as such, the rigors provided
under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
(Amendment) Act would not be applicable in the case.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the
use of the vehicle of the petitioner in crime, clearly suggests his
involvement.
6. Regard being had to the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the name of
the petitioner has been implicated by virtue of he being owner
of the car, which had already been transferred to one Gyanendra
Bibhuti and the deed of the agreement has already been placed
on record, besides the fair antecedent of the petitioner, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44025 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
3/3
weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (twenty
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No. 5,
Gaya in connection with Sherghati P.S. Case No. 145/2026,
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)
siddharth kr.
shaw/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.