Patna High Court

Sikandar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 17 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

Pre‑arrest bail was denied.

Summary

The petitioners, four individuals from Bhagwanpur, sought pre‑arrest bail in a 2018 case (Fatuha PS No. 314) for alleged contravention of Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, wherein 100 litres of illicit liquor were seized. They claimed innocence and alleged false implication. The State opposed, highlighting that petitioners 1 and 2 have seven prior criminal records and petitioners 3 and 4 each have one, many under the Excise Act. The Court examined the seriousness of the offence and the petitioners' criminal antecedents. Considering the past convictions, the Court was not inclined to grant bail. Consequently, the pre‑arrest bail application was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted to the accused under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act given their criminal antecedents

Subjects

pre‑arrest bail
criminal antecedents
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Section 30(a)
excise offence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8197 of 2026
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-314 Year-2018 Thana- FATUA District- Patna
                 ======================================================
           1.     Sikandar Yadav S/O Late Jaglal Yadav R/O Village- Bhagwanpur,
                  Devarsaukhi, P.S- Fatuha, Distt.- Patna.
           2.    Chotu Kumar S/O Jhauri Singh @ Jhauri Yadav R/O Village- Bhagwanpur,
                 Devarsaukhi, P.S- Fatuha, Distt.- Patna.
           3.    Jhunu Yadav @ Jhuman Rai S/O Guddi Rai R/O Village- Bhagwanpur,
                 Devarsaukhi, P.S- Fatuha, Distt.- Patna.
           4.    Guddi Rai @ Guddi Yadav S/O Moni Rai R/O Village- Bhagwanpur,
                 Devarsaukhi, P.S- Fatuha, Distt.- Patna.

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Sushant Pratap Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-02-2026                      Heard Mr. Sushant Pratap Singh, learned counsel

                   appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Shyam Bihari

                   Singh, learned APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection

                   with Fatuha P.S. Case No. 314 of 2018 registered for the

                   offence(s) punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar

                   Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                 3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, 100 litres

                   of illicit liquor were recovered from the bank of a river near a

                   palm tree.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8197 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                                   4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                     petitioner submitted that petitioners are innocent and have

                     falsely been implicated in the present case.

                                   5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the

                     prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail. He submitted that petitioners

                     no.1 and 2 have seven criminal antecedents, whereas petitioners

                     no.3 and 4 have one criminal antecedent each and most of the

                     cases are under Excise Act.

                                   6. Considering the past criminal antecedents of the

                     petitioners,      I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the

                     petitioners. Accordingly, the present bail application stands

                     dismissed.



                                               (Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…