Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar MehataversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted as the allegations do not constitute an offence under the Act and the seizure was from an open place, subject to strict conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after police alleged his involvement in the seizure of 114 litres of foreign liquor under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and sections 317(5), 318(4) and 338 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act. The police claimed the petitioner escaped from a raid conducted on secret information, but the seizure was from an open place and no direct possession was established. The petitioner argued that his prior criminal antecedent was the sole basis for his implication and relied on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) if the FIR does not disclose an offence. The State opposed, stating that a person nabbed had identified the petitioner. The High Court, considering the precedent and the facts, granted anticipatory bail with a set of stringent conditions, including surety, regular appearances before police and courts, and prohibition on tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2).
- Whether the facts of seizure from an open place and lack of direct possession justify granting anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, or committing further offences.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 317(5), 318(4), 338
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- foreign liquor seizure
- bail conditions
- police raid
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8430 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-254 Year-2025 Thana- KORHA District- Katihar
======================================================
Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Mehata S/o Hira Lal Mehata Resident of
Village- Maheshpur, P.S. - Korha, District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md Musowir, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
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 Korha P.S. Case No. 254 of 2025 for the offence under sections
30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and Section 318(4),
317(5) and 338 of BNS.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police on secret
information, raided the place behind the Ambey Hotel and and there
is recovery/seizure of 114 liter foreign liquor. The person who
escaped is alleged to be the petitioner. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only
because of criminal antecedent that he has, the Police implicated him.
The recovery/seizure is from an open place and nothing from his
conscious possession.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8430 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/3
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 the
person who was nabbed, has named him.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties and
the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as also the
fact that recovery/seizure is from an open place, as submitted, in that
background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of
anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. 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/- (Ten thousand)
with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Exclusive Special Excise Court-II, Katihar in connection with Korha
P.S. Case No. 254 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;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8430 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/3
(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 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
Checking your session…