Patna High Court
Rooplal @ Rooplal MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner No.2 subject to conditions, but rejected the application of petitioner No.1.
Summary
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act concerning the recovery of 6.045 litres of Nepali liquor. They argued that their names were implicated solely on the basis of a statement by an apprehended person and that the recovery was made in a public place, asserting no involvement. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioners' prior criminal records of a similar nature. The Court, applying Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, granted anticipatory bail to petitioner No.2 (Ramsanehi Mahto) upon surrender and furnishing bail bonds with sureties, but denied bail to petitioner No.1 (Rooplal Mahto) due to his multiple antecedents. The order was conditioned on compliance with the statutory provisions and the Court’s directions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner No.1 under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering his criminal antecedents.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner No.2 under the same provision, given the alleged lack of involvement and procedural factors.
- Whether the requirements of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, were complied with in the investigation.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103, 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita
- Section 30(a)
- Section 103
- Section 482(2)
- criminal antecedents
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8387 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2025 Thana- KANHAULI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. Rooplal @ Rooplal Mahto S/o- Late Ram Lakshan Mahto Resident Of
Village- Araria Ps- Kanhauli District- Sitamarhi
2. Ramsanehi Mahto @ Sanehi Mahto S/o- Late Ram Keval Mahto Resident
Of Village- Dostiya Ps- Bhutahi District- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Umeshanand Pandit, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Kanhauli P.S. Case No. 174 of 2025, instituted for the
offences under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that total 6.045
litres of Nepali liquor was recovered from plastic bag.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case.
The name of the petitioners transpired in this case on the basis
of statement given by apprehended person. Learned counsel for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8387 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026
2/3
the petitioners further submitted that the recovery has been
made from open place, which is accessible to public at large.
The petitioners have got no concern with the alleged recovery of
liquor. The petitioner No.1 has five criminal antecedents,
whereas petitioner No.2 has one criminal antecedent. There is
no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioners,
therefore, contends that prima-facie no case is made out against
the petitioners.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners. The petitioners
have several criminal antecedents of similar nature.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, let the petitioner No.2 namely Ramsanehi Mahto @
Sanehi Mahto, in the event of their arrest/surrender before the
learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be
released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court
in connection with Kanhauli P.S. Case No. 174 of 2025, subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8387 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026
3/3
7. So far as petitioner No.1 Rooplal @ Rooplal Mahto is
concerned, taking into account the criminal antecedents of
similar nature, in my view, this is not a fit case for anticipatory
bail, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner no.1 namely Rooplal @ Rooplal Mahto is, hereby,
rejected.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…