Patna High Court
Deepak MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, no conscious possession of the seized liquor, and the precedent allows such relief despite section 76(2).
Summary
The petitioner, Deepak Mahto, was implicated in a case (PS‑537/2025) for alleged possession of 351 litres of country‑made liquor seized from a four‑wheeler he owned, leading to an FIR under sections 274, 275, 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He applied for anticipatory bail, arguing he had no criminal antecedent, was not present at the seizure, and had no conscious possession of the liquor. The State opposed, contending ownership alone sufficed for liability. Relying on the precedent of Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar in section 76(2) of the Excise Act when no offence is made out, the court granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions. The order remains conditional on the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedent and compliance with the bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under section 76(2)?
- Does mere ownership of a vehicle from which liquor is seized constitute an offence absent conscious possession?
- Does the petitioner’s clean criminal record justify the grant of anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 274, 275, 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- prohibition act
- vehicle ownership
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
- section 76(2) bar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8397 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-537 Year-2025 Thana- RAJNAGAR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Deepak Mahto Son of Jagadish Mahto Resident of Village - Ranti, Ps-
Rajnagar, Dist- madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Archna Aanand, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 537 of 2025 for the
offence under sections 274, 275, 3(5) of the BNS and Section
30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act lodged on
26.12.2025 by the informant, Sunil Kumar Tripathi.
3. As per the prosecution story, two four wheelers
were intercepted, petitioner being the owner of the second
vehicle. There is recovery/seizure of 351 liter country made
liquor. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
do not have criminal antecedent and only because being the
owner, implicated. He was not present at the spot.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8397 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/4
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in
2019 (2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an
application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar
Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar
under Section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation
made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made
out.
6. Learned APP, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh opposes
the prayer submitting that he is the owner of the vehicle.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that the petitioner do not have criminal antecedent, nothing
has been recovered from his conscious possession, in that
background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of
anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. If, however, it is found that contrary to the
statement made in paragraph 3 of the petition, the petitioner has
criminal antecedent, the present order shall become infructuous.
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the
receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8397 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/4
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge Excise Act,
Madhubani in connection with Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 537 of
2025 subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall be appearing before the
Police Station as and when required for co-operating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned
police station every fortnight for six months to mark his
attendance and after the end of the period, the certificate shall be
submitted before the Trial Court failing which steps shall be
taken for the cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8397 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
4/4
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(vi) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
Checking your session…