Patna High Court

Sudhir Rai @ Sudhir KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 15 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied.

Summary

The petitioner, Sudhir Rai, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (Sonepur PS Case No. 1004 of 2025) under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, where 225 litres of illicit liquor were seized behind a co‑accused's shop. The prosecution’s case relied on identification by a local chowkidar, while the petitioner argued that the seizure occurred in an open public area and that he had no involvement. The petitioner also highlighted that he has five prior criminal convictions of a similar nature and that there was no compliance with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the petitioner’s repeat offences. The High Court, considering the antecedents and the nature of the alleged offence, refused anticipatory bail but indicated that regular bail could be considered if the petitioner surrenders within four weeks.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a petitioner with multiple prior convictions in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103

Subjects

anticipatory bail
criminal antecedents
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita
Section 30(a)
Section 103
high court bail order

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87750 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1004 Year-2025 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Sudhir Rai @ Sudhir Kumar S/O Ramesh Rai @ Ramesh Ray R/O Village-
                 Sabalpur Newal Tola @ Newl Tola, PS- Sonepur @ Sonpur, District- Saran

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Meena Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER
2   15-01-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                           2.      The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Sonepur PS Case No. 1004 of 2025 instituted for the offences

                   under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                           3.      The prosecution case, in short, is that total 225 litres

                   of country made liquor was recovered from behind the shop of co-

                   accused.

                           4.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

                   petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The

                   name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of

                   identification by the local chowkidar. Learned counsel further

                   submitted that the place of seizure is an open place and is

                   accessible to one and all. The petitioner has got no concern with
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87750 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
                                                       2/2




                     the alleged recovery of liquor. Learned counsel for the petitioner,

                     therefore, contends that prima-facie no case is made out against

                     the petitioner. The petitioner has five criminal antecedents. There

                     is no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika

                     Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

                              5.     Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

                     the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that

                     petitioner bears five criminal antecedents, that too of the similar

                     nature, hence, he may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

                              6.     Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

                     the case, since petitioner bears five criminal antecedents, that too

                     of the similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory

                     bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the

                     petitioner is hereby rejected.

                                   7. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court

                     below within a period of four weeks from today and prays for

                     regular bail, the same would be considered by the court below in

                     accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this

                     Court.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Siddharth Soni/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…