Patna High Court
Amarjit Manjhi @ Amardip ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions, holding that the absence of possession and criminal antecedent outweighs the Section 76(2) bar.
Summary
Amarjit Manjhi sought anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after police seized 140 litres of country‑made liquor near his house. The petitioner contended that only 15 litres were alleged, none were in his conscious possession, and he had no prior criminal record. The State argued that the seizure was opposite his house and he was correctly named in the FIR. Relying on the Patna High Court’s 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 examined the facts. Finding no evidence of possession or antecedent, the court granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions, reserving the right to cancel it if contrary facts emerge.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act when the alleged seizure is not from the petitioner’s possession.
- Whether the bar under Section 76(2) of the Act precludes an anticipatory bail application in such circumstances.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedent and the location of the seizure justify granting bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- seizure of liquor
- possession
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8503 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-915 Year-2022 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran
======================================================
Amarjit Manjhi @ Amardip Manjhi Son of Kishun Manjhi Resident of
Village- Sadha, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No. 915 of 2022 for
the offence under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, on secret information,
the Police raided the place and altogether, 140 country made
liquor recovered/seized. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so
far as he is concerned, there is allegation of recovery/seizure of
15 liter country made liquor, nothing has been recovered from
his conscious possession nor he has criminal antecedent
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8503 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/4
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 the
recovery/seizure is just opposite to the house of the petitioner
and as such, he has rightly been named in the FIR.
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 not from the house but opposite to it, he do
not have criminal antecedent. Considering the submission that
nothing has been 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8503 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/4
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-II-
cum-Exclusive Special Excise Court No.-I, Saran at Chapra in
connection with Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No. 915 of 2022
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8503 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
4/4
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…