Patna High Court
Aman Raj GautamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner as no offence under the Act is made out against him, subject to conditions.
Summary
Aman Raj Gautam, the owner of a Toyota, was implicated in an excise case (Case No. 1159 of 2024) for alleged possession of 0.750 litres of foreign liquor, violating sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The petitioner, having no criminal antecedent, sought anticipatory bail, arguing that ownership alone should not attract liability. The State contended that the owner could not exonerate himself. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar (2019), the court held that anticipatory bail can be granted despite the bar under Section 76(2) if the FIR does not establish an offence against the petitioner. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and several conditions, reserving the right to cancel the bail if antecedents are discovered or conditions breached.
Issues considered
- Whether the owner of a vehicle can be granted anticipatory bail under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2).
- Whether the absence of criminal antecedent and lack of direct involvement justify anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- vehicle owner liability
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8452 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1159 Year-2024 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Aman Raj Gautam S/o- Harchhath Village- Sairpur, P.S.- Fatehpur, District-
Uttar Pradesh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akash Raj, Adv.
Ms. Nikita Mittal, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Iftekhar Mahmood, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 Heard Ms. Nikita Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner
and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection
with Excise P.S. Case No. 1159 of 2024 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
Toyota vehicle and there is recovery of 0.750 foreign liquor. This led
to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because
of him being the owner of the Toyota, got implicated. The occupants
already stand arrested, he do not have criminal antecedent either.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8452 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/3
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
recovery is from the persons who were already sitting in the car,
petitioner is the owner having no criminal antecedent, 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
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 Judge (Excise) Court-II, Kishanganj in connection with
Excise P.S. Case No. 1159 of 2024 subject to the following
conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8452 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/3
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 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;
(v) 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…