Patna High Court
Vipin KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to conditions and verification of their antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Vipin Kumar and Karu Mahto, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 for allegedly possessing 25 litres of liquor and 600 kg of fermented Jawa Mahua. They argued that the alleged contraband was seized from a semi‑constructed house where no family member resided, that they were not arrested at the spot and had no conscious possession, and that the complaint was motivated by a hostile individual. The State opposed the bail, contending the offences were cognizable. The Court, after considering the clean antecedent of the petitioners and the lack of direct possession, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs 500 and two sureties, with verification of antecedents by the trial court. The order stipulated that if any criminal antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
- Whether the alleged recovery of liquor and fermented Jawa Mahua from a semi‑constructed house establishes sufficient grounds for arrest and denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 30(c)
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30
- Section 438 CrPC
- clean antecedent
- liquor seizure
- fermented Jawa Mahua
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7199 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1003 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Vipin Kumar S/o Karu @ Rambriksh Mahto Resident of - Loharpura, P.S -
Kadirganj, District - Nawada
2. Karu @ Rambriksh Mahto S/o Late Jagdish Mahto Resident of - Loharpura,
P.S - Kadirganj, District - Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Madhuri Lata, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and
30(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 25 litres of liquor from semi construed house of the
petitioners along with 600 Kg. of fermented Jawa Mahua which
was destroyed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and the house from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7199 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
2/3
where it is alleged that liquor and fermented Jawa Mahua were
seized was under construction, as such, none of the family
members was staying in the house. It is further submitted that it
appears that someone inimical to the family of the petitioners
concealed meager amount of liquor along with Jawa Mahua
with an intent to implicate the entire family members. It is next
submitted that no prudent person would use his own premises
for committing an occurrence and thus would create evidence
against himself and hence would get implicated. It is also
submitted that petitioners came to be implicated at the instance
of the local person but then the name of the person who
disclosed the name of the petitioners is not disclosed in the FIR
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when
petitioners admittedly are persons with clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, let the petitioners above-named, in
the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7199 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
3/3
of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor
court in connection with Excise P.S. Case No. 1003 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial
court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and
if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of even one case, it
would be presumed that petitioners had concealed their
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…