Patna High Court

Pawan Rai @ Pawan Kr. Yadav @ Pawan Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

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

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Pawan Rai, sought anticipatory bail in a case (PS No. 318 of 2024) involving alleged illegal possession of 1,365 litres of liquor, alleged under Sections 30(a), 33, 34 and 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He contended that his name was mentioned only through statements of co‑accused, that he was neither the owner nor driver of the vehicles, and that no prima facie case existed against him. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioner's six prior criminal convictions of a similar nature. The Court examined the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, concluding that granting anticipatory bail would be inappropriate. Consequently, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application but indicated that regular bail could be considered if the petitioner surrenders within four weeks.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the alleged offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and his prior criminal record

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103

Subjects

anticipatory bail
criminal antecedents
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita
illegal liquor possession
bail jurisprudence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87761 of 2025
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-318 Year-2024 Thana- AMNAUR District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Pawan Rai @ Pawan Kr. Yadav @ Pawan Kumar Yadav S/o Dudhnath Rai
                 R/o Village- Guna Chapra, P.S.- Amnour, District- Saran

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, 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 Amnour PS Case No. 318 of 2024 instituted for the offences

                   under Sections 30(a), 33, 34, 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and

                   Excise Act.

                           3.      The prosecution case, in short, is that total 1365 litres

                   of liquor was recovered from two pick-up vans.

                           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

                   disclosure made by the apprehended co-accused persons. Learned

                   counsel further submitted that petitioner is neither the owner nor

                   the driver of the vehicle in question. The petitioner has got no
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87761 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
                                                       2/2




                     concern with 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 six criminal

                     antecedent. 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 six 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 six 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…