Patna High Court
Indu SinhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted despite the bar under Section 76(2) as no prima‑facie case of possession against the petitioner was established.
Summary
Indu Sinha sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case alleging 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 she owned but had allegedly sold before the incident. She argued that she was not in possession of the liquor and that the registration transfer of the vehicle was pending, relying on a Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar which held that Section 76(2) of the Act does not bar anticipatory bail if no offence is made out. The State opposed, contending that Section 76(2) barred bail. The Court examined the facts, noted the lack of prima‑facie possession by the petitioner, and granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond and sureties, with conditions under CrPC Sections 438(2) and 482(2).
Issues considered
- Whether Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 bars the grant of anticipatory bail in the present case.
- Whether the petitioner can be said to be in possession of the illicit liquor for purposes of the offences alleged.
- Whether the facts disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner warranting denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 32(ii), 41(i), 76(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 76(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- illicit liquor
- false implication
- registration transfer
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6595 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2023 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Indu Sinha Son of Om Prakash Singh R/o Village - Bhuidhara, P.S. -
Samastipur, Dist. - Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Iftekhar Mahmood
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 09-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her 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 due to technical reasons as petitioner at the time
of recovery was actual owner of the vehicle, though she sold
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6595 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
the vehicle in issue much prior to the occurrence to one Raj
Kishore Ray @ Malahu for which transfer of registration
certificate was in process/pending. 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 lady 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.6595 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 allegation,
where prima-facie recovery of illicit liquor not appears to be
made from the physical possession of petitioner, let the above
named petitioner, in the event of her arrest/surrender within a
period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory
bail on 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 Judge Excise-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…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.