Patna High Court
Deepak KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted as the petitioner is not the owner of the hut and no offence under Section 30(a) is made out, notwithstanding the bar under Section 76(2).
Summary
The petitioner, Deepak Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for the alleged possession of 39.90 litres of foreign liquor seized from a hut. He argued that he is merely a labourer and not the owner of the hut, and cited his two prior criminal records as the only reason for his implication. The State opposed the bail on the ground of his antecedents. Relying on the Patna High Court Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, the court held that anticipatory bail can be granted despite the bar under Section 76(2) if the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with a set of conditions, including a bail bond, sureties, regular appearances before police and courts, and prohibitions against tampering with evidence or committing further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2) when the FIR does not establish an offence.
- Whether the petitioner, being a labourer with prior convictions, is liable for the offence under Section 30(a).
- Whether conditions may be imposed on the grant of anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 76(2)
- seizure of foreign liquor
- criminal antecedents
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8444 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-454 Year-2025 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna
======================================================
Deepak Kumar Son of Rajpal Saw Resident of Ekbalganj Nisarpura, P.S.-
Ranitalab, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gopal Krishna Nishant, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pushpa Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 Heard Mr. Gopal Krishna Nishant, learned counsel for
the petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection
with Ranitalab P.S. Case No. 454 of 2024 for the offence under
sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police on the secret
information, raided the hut and there is recovery/seizure of 39.90 liter
foreign liquor. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has
two criminal antecedents and only because of that, got implicated. He
is a labour and not the owner of the hut.
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.8444 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 antecedents.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties and
the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as also that
the hut does not belong to him, as submitted, is a labour, 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
Special Excise Judge, Danapur in connection with Ranitalab P.S.
Case No. 454 of 2024 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8444 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/3
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 T
Checking your session…