Patna High Court
Bahadur Ray @ Sujit RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the petitioners' criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Bahadur Ray and Abhimanyu Ray, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Excise Act, alleging that liquor and raw fermented Jawa Mahua were recovered from the Ganga river bank and that they were implicated solely on the testimony of a hostile chowkidar. They contended that nothing was seized from their possession and that the alleged recovery site was public, questioning the basis of the police investigation. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on the petitioners furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000 each with two sureties and stipulated that the trial court verify their criminal antecedents. If the antecedent count exceeds the disclosed numbers, the provisional bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the excise case under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the alleged recovery of liquor from a public river bank and the reliance on a hostile chowkidar’s testimony justify denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- Section 30
- Section 482
- provisional bail
- Bihar Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88277 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2025 Thana- GANGABRIDGE District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Bahadur Ray @ Sujit Ray S/O Rambabu Ray Resident of village- Diwantok,
Ward no. 6, P.S.- Ganga Bridge, Dist.- Vaishali.
2. Abhimanyu Ray @ Abhimanyu Kumar S/O Munilal Ray Resident of
village- Diwantok, Ward no. 6, P.S.- Ganga Bridge, Dist.- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 20-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and
30(c) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of two cases under the excise act
and petitioner no. 3 has antecedent of three cases under the
excise act and allegation is of recovery of 600 liters of liquor
from bank of Ganga river along with 6000 liters of raw
fermented Jawa Mahua which was destroyed at the spot.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88277 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
2/3
petitioners were not apprehended from the spot as such nothing
was recovered from their conscious possession and even alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
and is accessible to villagers at large and they came to be
implicated at the instance of Chowkidar with whom they are on
an inimical term. It is also submitted that if Chowkidar was
aware of the involvement of the petitioners in the occurrence
then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the
instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the
prosecution. It is also submitted that once an accused is
implicated in a case relating to excise, the police starts
implicating mechanically either at the instance of Chowkidar,
local person, confessional statement or secret information
without holding a proper investigation.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Trial Court
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) each with two sureties of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88277 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
3/3
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court where the case is pending/successor court in connection
with Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 173 of 2025 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial
Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and
in the event if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of
more than two cases and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of more
than three cases then it would be presumed that petitioners, for
the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed their
antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after
verification if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of
two cases only and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of three cases
only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…