Patna High Court

Vinesh Kumar @ Vinesh Kumar RaiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 19 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Vinesh Kumar, was implicated in a case concerning the seizure of 816.48 litres of liquor from a Mahindra pickup, alleged to be a violation of Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He contended that his name was only disclosed by a co-accused, that he was neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle, and that there was no prima facie case against him, especially noting the lack of compliance with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, but the State opposed, highlighting his four prior criminal convictions of a similar nature. The High Court, considering the seriousness of the antecedents, refused to grant anticipatory bail, directing that regular bail could be considered only if he surrenders within four weeks. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the alleged involvement in liquor seizure under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and his prior criminal antecedents.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103

Subjects

anticipatory bail
criminal antecedent
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
liquor seizure
bail jurisprudence
Section 103 Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89848 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2025 Thana- AURAI District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Vinesh Kumar @ Vinesh Kumar Rai son of Amir Ray Village- Prem Nagar,
                 Bhalura, PS -Aurai District- Muzaffarpur



                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus


                 The State of Bihar



                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   19-01-2026             Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

                   for the State.

                           2.       The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Aurai PS Case No. 211 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 816.48

                   litres of liquor was recovered from Mahindra pickup.

                           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 apprehended co-accused person. Learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89848 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026
                                            2/3




          counsel further submitted that petitioner is neither the owner nor

          the driver of the vehicle. The petitioner has got no concern with

          the alleged recovery of liquor. The petitioner has four criminal

          antecedent. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the

          Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Learned counsel

          for the petitioner, therefore, contends that prima-facie no case is

          made out against the petitioner.

                  5.      Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

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

          petitioner bears four criminal antecedent/s, that too of the

          similar nature, hence, petitioner does not deserve the privilege

          of anticipatory bail.

                  6.      Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

          of the case and specifically taking into account the fact that

          petitioner bears four criminal antecedent/s, 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
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89848 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                     order of this Court.



                                                                 (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…