Patna High Court
Dhiraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions, holding that ownership alone does not preclude bail and Section 76(2) does not bar it where no offence is made out.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhiraj Kumar, was implicated in a case under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after a two-wheeler he owned was seized with 32.2 litres of country-made liquor. He applied for anticipatory bail, asserting that he has no criminal antecedent and that ownership alone should not render him liable. The State opposed, arguing that as the owner he cannot exonerate himself. The Court, relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, held that anticipatory bail can be granted despite the bar under Section 76(2) if the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence. Considering the petitioner’s clean record and lack of possession, the Court granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions, reserving the right to cancel the bail if a criminal antecedent is later discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act when the accused is merely the owner of the vehicle from which liquor was seized.
- Whether Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
- Whether the absence of a criminal antecedent and lack of possession affect the entitlement to anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- section 30(a)
- section 76(2)
- owner liability
- criminal antecedent
- seizure of liquor
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8423 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2025 Thana- AMBA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Dhiraj Kumar S/O Santosh Singh R/o village- Ramabandh, P.S.Town,
District-Aurangabad .
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Amba P.S. Case No. 185 of 2025 for the
offence under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, on secret information,
a two wheeler vehicle was intercepted and there is
recovery/seizure of 32.2 liter country made liquor. This led to
the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
do not have criminal antecedent and it has wrongly come in the
learned Sessions Judge order that he has criminal antecedent.
Further, only because he is the owner, got implicated, nothing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8423 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/4
has been recovered from his criminal antecedent.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
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 opposes the prayer submitting that he
being the owner, cannot exonerate himself from the
responsibility.
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 nor
anything recovered from his conscious possession, in that
background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of
anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. However, if it is found that contrary to the statement
made in paragraph 3, the petitioner has criminal antecedent, the
present order shall become infructuous.
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8423 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/4
arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the
receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Court of the District & Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court No.
1, Aurangabad in connection with Amba P.S. Case No. 185 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;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8423 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
4/4
(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
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…