Patna High Court
Raj Kishore Ray @ MalahuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted as the recovery of illicit liquor was not made from the petitioner's physical possession and the bar under Section 76(2) did not apply.
Summary
Petitioner Raj Kishore Ray sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 420 and 120(B) of the IPC and Sections 30(a), 32(ii) and 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, where 4,725.72 litres of illicit liquor were seized from a vehicle he owned. He contended that the vehicle’s registration remained in the name of the seller, Indu Sinha, and that he had no physical possession of the liquor, relying on the Full Bench judgment in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar which allows anticipatory bail despite the Section 76(2) bar if no offence under the Act is made out. The State opposed, invoking the Section 76(2) bar. The Court examined the facts, noted the recovery was not from the petitioner's possession, and held that the bar did not apply, granting anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.20,000 bond and sureties under CrPC Section 438(2) and BNSS Section 482(2).
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the bar under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
- Whether the recovery of illicit liquor can be attributed to the petitioner given the vehicle registration was not transferred to his name.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 32(ii), 41(i), 76(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illicit liquor
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- vehicle ownership
- Section 76(2) bar
- Indian Penal Code
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.464 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2023 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Raj Kishore Ray @ Malahu S/o- Sonelal Ray Village- Chakamir Banki PS-
Baligaon Distt- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Suruchi Anand
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Sucheta Yadav
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 09-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Patepur P.S. Case No. 112 of 2023 for the
offences punishable u/s 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 30(a), 32 (ii) and 41 (i) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act 2016.
3. As per the prosecution case, total 4725.72 litres
of illicit Indian made foreign liquor was recovered from the
vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated
in this case as he is the owner of the alleged vehicle which
was purchased by him from one Indu Sinha, but still
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.464 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
registration certificate of the vehicle in issue is in favour of
Indu Sinha and was not transferred in favour of petitioner.
Learned Counsel has relied on the judgment of 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. The
Full Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra) has
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. While concluding the argument, it is
submitted that similarly situated co-accused namely Manoj
Kumar Mahto has already granted anticipatory bail by
coordinate Bench of this Court through Cr. Misc. No. 66162 of
2023 dated 15.02.2023. Petitioner is a man of clean
antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by
submitting that the bar of Section 76(2) of the Act applies in
this case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.464 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the nature of accusation,
where recovery of illicit liquor prima-facie not appears to be
made from the physical possession of petitioner, let the above
named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a
period of four weeks from today, be released on bail upon
furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Prohibition and
Excise Court-II, cum District and Additional Sessions Judge,
Hajipur at Vaishali in connection with Patepur P.S. Case No.
112 of 2023 subject to conditions as laid down under section
438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/ 482(2) of the
BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
U T
Checking your session…