Patna High Court
Raju Kumar Das @ Raju KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner subject to stringent conditions.
Summary
Raju Kumar Das sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act for the alleged seizure of 36 litres of Desi Sophie from a motorcycle. He contended that he neither owned nor was driving the vehicle and that the prosecution’s case was based solely on secret information. The State opposed the bail on the ground of his prior criminal record. The Court, relying on the precedent of Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar (2019) which allows anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) if no offence is made out, held that the petitioner’s lack of ownership and possession justified granting bail. Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and six specific conditions, including regular appearances before police and the trial court and a prohibition on tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act despite the bar in Section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of ownership or possession of the seized contraband negates the likelihood of his involvement in the offence.
- Whether a prior criminal antecedent precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act
- section 30(a)
- section 76(2)
- criminal antecedent
- seizure of contraband
- bail conditions
- possession
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8439 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-178 Year-2025 Thana- NIRMALI District- Supaul
======================================================
Raju Kumar Das @ Raju Kumar S/o Jhamlal Das R/o Village - Laxaminiya,
P.S - Laukahi, District - Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Pratibha Srivastava, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 Heard Mrs. Pratibha Srivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection
with Niramali P.S. Case No. 178 of 2025 for the offence under
sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, on secret information, a
motorcycle was intercepted and there is recovery/seizure of 36 liter
Desi Sophie. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither
he is the owner nor was driving the vehicle, only because he has one
criminal antecedent, got implicated.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8439 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/3
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 has
criminal antecedent.
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 own the motorcycle 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. 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
Court of Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court No. 2, Supaul in
connection with Niramali P.S. Case No. 178 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.8439 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…