Patna High Court
Shivshankar MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted as the seizure was from the house and no offence under the Act was made out against the petitioner.
Summary
Shivshankar Mahto sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after police seized 10 litres of country-made liquor from a house raid. He argued that the liquor was joint property, not in his conscious possession, and that the FIR did not establish an offence against him. Relying on the Patna High Court Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, he contended that anticipatory bail could be granted despite the bar in Section 76(2) if no offence is made out. The State opposed, citing the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent. The court, considering the precedent and the fact that the seizure was from the house rather than the petitioner’s possession, granted anticipatory bail with a set of strict conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar in Section 76(2).
- Whether seizure of liquor from a house, without proof of conscious possession, negates the basis for denying bail.
- Whether a prior criminal antecedent precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 76(2)
- joint property
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8526 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-533 Year-2025 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Shivshankar Mahto S/O Dukhan Mahto R/O Village- Sareya Britti, Dhangal
Toli, P.S- Paharpur, Distt.- East Champaran, Motihari.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gulnar Begum, 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 Paharpur P.S. Case No. 533 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, raided the house of Anil Mahto and this petitioner and
there is recovery/seizure of 10 liter country made liquor. This led to
the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is joint
property and not the exclusive one, nothing has been recovered from
his conscious possession and only because of 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8526 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 has
one 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
recovery/seizure is from the house and not 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
Special Judge, Excise court No.-1, Easat Champaran, Motihari in
connection with Paharpur P.S. Case No. 533 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.8526 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…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.