Patna High Court
Madhaw SahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted as the petitioner has no possession of the seized liquor, no criminal antecedent, and the bar under Section 76(2) does not apply where no offence is established.
Summary
Madhaw Sahani sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after police seized 25 litres of country‑made liquor in a raid. The petitioner argued that nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and he had no criminal antecedent. He relied on the Patna High Court Full‑Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which held that the bar under Section 76(2) of the Act does not preclude anticipatory bail where no offence is made out. The State opposed, citing local testimony naming the petitioner. The Court, noting the lack of possession, clean record and the cited precedent, granted anticipatory bail with a set of strict conditions and a proviso that the order would become null if antecedent is later discovered.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2) when no offence is made out?
- Does the petitioner’s lack of possession of the seized liquor and absence of criminal antecedent justify the grant of anticipatory bail?
- Are the conditions imposed by the Court appropriate and sufficient to safeguard the investigation?
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30
- Section 76(2)
- criminal antecedent
- liquor seizure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8479 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-391 Year-2025 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Madhaw Sahani son of Khedan Sahani Resident of Village- Bishunpura PS-
Manjhagarh District -Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anand Vardhan, 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 the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 391 of 2025 for the
offence under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police on secret
information, reached the place and on raid, 25 liter country
made liquor recovered/seized. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession and
do 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8479 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/4
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
locals have given his name.
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 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. 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 Additional District and Sessions Judge-
XIII-cum-Special Excise Court No. 1, Gopalganj in connection
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8479 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/4
with Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 391 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;
(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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8479 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
4/4
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…