Patna High Court
Ram Prakash SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail may be granted where no offence is made out against the petitioner, notwithstanding the bar in Section 76(2), subject to conditions.
Summary
Ram Prakash Sah, owner of a motorcycle, was implicated in a seizure of 36 litres of country-made liquor under sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He applied for anticipatory bail, contending that he was merely the owner and the vehicle was driven by Deepak Kumar, and that he has no criminal antecedent. The State opposed, arguing that ownership cannot exempt him from liability. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) when no offence is made out, the Court granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions. The order remains subject to revocation if the petitioner is found to have a criminal antecedent or violates any condition.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted to the owner of a vehicle used in a liquor seizure under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2)?
- Does the absence of criminal antecedent and the claim that the driver was responsible justify granting anticipatory bail?
- Is the precedent set in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar applicable to the present case?
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- seizure of liquor
- ownership liability
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8437 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1171 Year-2023 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Ram Prakash Sah Son of Shri Ram Chandra Sah Resident of Rolbagh ward
no. 30, P.S. - Kishanganj, Dist. - Kishanganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Ashmita Bharti, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 Heard Ms. Ashmita Bharti, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Special Case No. 1213 of 2023 arising out of
Madya Nisedh P.S. Case No. 1171 of 2023 for the offence under
sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police intercepted
a motorcycle and there is recovery/seizure of 36 liter country
made liquor. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
motorcycle is owned by him but was driven by Deepak Kumar
and only because he is owner, got implicated. The petitioner do
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8437 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/4
not have 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 he do not have criminal antecedent and
recovery/seizure is from Deepak Kumar, as submitted, 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.8437 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 Exclusive Special Judge (Excise)-II,
Kishanganj in connection with Special Case No. 1213 of 2023
arising out of Madya Nisedh P.S. Case No. 1171 of 2023 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.8437 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…