Patna High Court
Raghav RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bail bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Raghav Rai, owner of Janki Dhaba, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly concealing 4.125 litres of liquor under husk at his premises. He was not arrested at the scene and no liquor was found in his possession. He applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the liquor was hidden by a customer and that he should not be penalised for the actions of others. The State opposed the bail. The High Court granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedent within six weeks, confirming bail only if he has no more than one prior case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement, without possession of liquor, warrants denial of bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- liquor concealment
- Section 30
- Section 482
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73493 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2025 Thana- EXCISE BENIPUR District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Raghav Rai S/O Late Bua Nand Rai R/O Village- Gharaura, Ward No. 01,
P.S- Bahera, Distt.- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ratnakar Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rana Randhir Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 27-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of one case as would manifest from
supplementary affidavit and allegation is of recovery of 4.125
litres of liquor concealed under husk near Janki Dhaba.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and Dhaba is a place
where customer in large number comes and no prudent person
would use his own premises for committing an occurrence and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73493 of 2025(4) dt.27-04-2026
2/3
thus would create evidence against himself and hence would get
implicated. It is further submitted that it appears that some
customer concealed meagre amount of liquor concealed under
husk within the premise of Dhaba and since the petitioner is
owner of Janki Dhaba hence came to be implicated at the
instance of local people in a mechanical manner by the police.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. 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 trial court within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on Provisional
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Excise P.S. Benipur
Case No. 78 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one
case then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73493 of 2025(4) dt.27-04-2026
3/3
Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner has
antecedent of one case in that event the provisional anticipatory
bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…