Patna High Court
Raju RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties and verification of antecedents.
Summary
Petitioner Raju Ray sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under IPC sections 272 and 273 and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018 (sections 30(a), 32(2) and 41(1). He alleged that the liquor seizure of 175 litres from a Bolero vehicle was based solely on a statement by Digvijay Prasad Chaurasiya, with no ownership or possession by the petitioner and no written sale agreement. The petitioner also highlighted his prior two excise cases and argued that the police were mechanically implicating him without proper investigation. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, with the bail to be confirmed only if antecedents are limited to two cases.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in view of the alleged offences under the IPC and Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the lack of possession or ownership of the seized vehicle and liquor affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 272, 273
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- possession
- police investigation
- bail conditions
- Indian Penal Code
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56958 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-307 Year-2019 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali
======================================================
Raju Ray S/O Maheshwar Ray Village- Almaanpur, Nandlalpur, P.S. and
Dist.- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Renu Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 05-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 272 and 273 of the
Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 30(a), 32(2) and 41(1) of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedents of two cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 175 litres of liquor from a Bolero
vehicle. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from
the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious
possession and is not the owner of the seized vehicle and he
came to be implicated based on the statement of Digvijay Prasad
Chaurasiya before the police that he had sold the vehicle to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56958 of 2025(3) dt.05-01-2026
2/3
petitioner by an agreement but then it is submitted that no such
agreement ever was executed in between him and Digvijay
Prasad Chaurasiya. It is also submitted that once an accused is
implicated in a case relating to excise, the police starts
implicating mechanically without holding a proper
investigation.
4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court of
Exclusive Special Excise Court-II, Vaishali at Hajipur in
connection with Vaishali P.S. Case No.307 of 2019, subject to
the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
6. The application stands allowed.
7. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56958 of 2025(3) dt.05-01-2026
3/3
found that petitioner has antecedents of more than two cases,
then it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before
this Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail
order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found
that petitioner has antecedents of only two cases, in that event,
the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…