Patna High Court
Ram Niwas Rai @ Mukesh RanjanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application of Petitioner 1 and granted provisional anticipatory bail to Petitioner 2 subject to conditions and verification of antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Ram Niwas Rai (Petitioner 1) and Sharma Rai (Petitioner 2), filed anticipatory bail applications in a criminal case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. Petitioner 1, who had already been arrested, sought to withdraw his anticipatory bail application, which the court permitted, resulting in the dismissal of his application as withdrawn. Petitioner 2, facing alleged recovery of 480 litres of liquor and claiming no direct possession or prior arrest, argued that the complaint was mechanically filed based on a watchman's information. The State opposed the bail. The court granted Petitioner 2 provisional anticipatory bail, subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, and conditioned the confirmation of bail on verification of his criminal antecedents within six weeks. If more than two prior cases are found, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether a petitioner may withdraw an anticipatory bail application after filing it.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS in view of the facts alleged.
- Whether the presence of more than two prior criminal cases should preclude confirmation of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- provisional bail
- withdrawal of application
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79430 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-848 Year-2025 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Ram Niwas Rai @ Mukesh Ranjan S/o Late Shivnath Rai @ Late Shivnath
Ray @ Mukhiya R/o - Sabalpur Neval Tola, P.S - Sonepur, District- Saran
2. Sharma Rai @ Sharma Nand Rai S/o Natha Rai R/o - Rustampur Raghopur,
P.S - Rustampur, District - Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset,
seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application
with respect to petitioner no. 1, namely, Ram Niwas Rai @
Mukesh Ranjan who was arrested during pendency of the same.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application with
respect to petitioner no. 1 is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. The petitioner no. 2 apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 submits
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79430 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
that petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of two cases and allegation
is of recovery of 480 litres of liquor from a place near Ganja
Diyara.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 submits
that petitioner no. 2 was not arrested from the spot, as such,
nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and even
the alleged recovery is from a place which does not belong to
the petitioner no. 2 and is accessible to villagers at large. It is
further submitted that petitioner no. 2 came to be implicated at
the instance of the Chawkidar but then it is submitted that if the
Chawkidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioner no. 2
in the occurrence then why he did not inform the police prior to
the institution of the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the
case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that once an accused
is implicated in a case relating to excise the police start
implicating mechanically at the instance of the Chawkidar, local
person, confessional statement or secret information without
holding a proper investigation of the case.
8. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner no. 2.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner no. 2, let the petitioner no. 2 above-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79430 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
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.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 Sonepur
P.S. Case No. 848 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.
10. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner no. 2 and if
it is found that petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of more than two
cases, it would be presumed that petitioner no. 2 had concealed
his 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
petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of only two cases in that event
the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…