Patna High Court
Abdul JalilversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond and conditions, finding the implication to be tenuous and procedural lapses significant.
Summary
Abdul Jalil sought anticipatory bail in a case involving the seizure of 8,000 litres of raw spirit alleged under IPC sections 272, 273 and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. He contended that he was never named in the FIR and was implicated solely on the confessional statement of co‑accused Murshid Alam, asserting that he neither owned nor drove the seized vehicle. The petitioner also argued that the recovery violated mandatory procedures under Section 100 of the CrPC/Section 103 of the Bihar Non‑Statutory Substitution (BNSS) Act, and that no case could be made against him under the excise law. The State opposed bail, invoking Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and pointing to three other pending cases, though the petitioner was already on bail in those matters. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar and the lack of procedural compliance, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties, and several conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC/Section 482(2) BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the petitioner’s implication is based solely on a co‑accused’s confessional statement.
- Whether the procedural requirements of Section 100 CrPC/Section 103 BNSS were complied with in the recovery of raw spirit.
- Applicability of Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act to pre‑arrest bail.
- Effect of the petitioner’s other pending criminal cases on the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 33, 41, 47, 76(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 100, 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 272, 273
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- raw spirit seizure
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- procedural lapse
- Section 76(2)
- Section 100 CrPC
- IPC 272
- IPC 273
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54833 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-238 Year-2019 Thana- BAISI District- Purnia
======================================================
Abdul Jalil S/O Abdul Khalil R/O Village- Daulatpur, P.S- Dalkola, Distt.-
Uttar Dinazpur (West Bangal).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs.Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 16-01-2026 Heard Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mrs.Dr. Indiwar Kumari, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Baisi P.S.Case No.238 of 2019,FIR dated
05.10.2019 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 272,273 of IPC and Sections 30(a),33,41,47 of Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Recovery is of 8000 liters raw spirit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.
Petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner
has been transpired during investigation on the basis of the
confessional statement of co-accused person, namely, Murshid
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54833 of 2025(5) dt.16-01-2026
2/4
@ Md. Murshid Alam and it appears from the FIR as well as
seizure list that the recovery has been made from the Truck in
question and petitioner is neither the owner nor the driver of the
vehicle in question and petitioner has no concern at all with the
alleged recovery of illicit raw spirit or the vehicle in question
and he has been made accused in the present case merely on the
basis of confessional statement of co-accused person, namely,
Murshid @ Md. Murshid Alam and said co-accused person,
namely, Murshid @ Md. Murshid Alam has been granted
privilege of anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this
Hon’ble Court vide order dated 15.06.2021 passed in Cr. Misc.
No.33040 of 2021 and several similarly situated co-accused
persons have been granted bail by different Coordinate Benches
of this Hon’ble Court vide orders at Annexure-3 Series of this
bail petition. There is non-compliance with mandatory
procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100 of
Cr.P.C./Section 103 of BNSS, 2023. No case, whatsoever, would
be made out against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner referring the
provision contained in Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54833 of 2025(5) dt.16-01-2026
3/4
and Excise Act and submitted that the pre-arrest bail would not
be maintainable. Further submits that the petitioner carries three
more cases other than the present one but fairly submits that the
petitioner is on bail in all the cases, as mentioned in para-3 of
the anticipatory bail petition.
6. This Court is aware of the decision of the Full
Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav Vs. State of Bihar
reported in 2019 (2) PLJR 1089. Having regard to the law laid
down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on
behalf of the parties, this Court for the limited purpose of grant
of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of
Counsel for the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the petitioner,
above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
court below within a period of thirty days from the date of
receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond
of Rs.10,000 (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special
Judge Excise No.-1, Purnea in connection with Baisi P.S.Case
No.238 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/ Section
482(2) of BNSS, 2023 and with other following conditions:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54833 of 2025(5) dt.16-01-2026
4/4
(I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and
on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(III) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his/her
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…