Patna High Court

Radhe Shyam Mukhiya @ Radhe MukhiyaversusThe State of Bihar

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

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied because the petitioners have three prior similar criminal convictions.

Summary

The petitioners, Radhe Shyam Mukhiya and Sanjay Poddar, applied for anticipatory bail in a case (Singhiya PS Case No. 166 of 2025) involving the alleged possession of 152.640 litres of liquor under Section 30(a) of the Indian Penal Code. They argued that they were falsely implicated, were neither owners nor drivers of the vehicle, and that the case against them was based solely on a co‑accused's disclosure. The State opposed the bail, highlighting that each petitioner has three prior criminal convictions of a similar nature. The court, considering the seriousness of the prior offences and the lack of compliance with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, declined to grant anticipatory bail. However, the court indicated that if the petitioners surrender within four weeks and apply for regular bail, the matter would be reconsidered.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 30(a) IPC given their prior criminal antecedents.
Whether non‑compliance with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103
Indian Penal Code — s. 30(a)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
criminal antecedents
illegal possession of liquor
Section 30 IPC
Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita
bail jurisprudence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90097 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2025 Thana- SINDHIYA District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
           1.     Radhe Shyam Mukhiya @ Radhe Mukhiya S/o Late Asharfi Mukhiya R/o
                  Village- Pipra, PS- Sindhiya, Distt- Samastipur
           2.    Sanjay Poddar S/o Bhola Poddar R/o vill - Sumbha, P.s.- Sindhiya, Distt.-
                 Samastipur



                                                                                    ... ... petitioner/s
                                                        Versus


                 The State of Bihar



                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the petitioners/s    :        Mr. Madhav Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

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

                   for the State.

                           2.       The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection

                   with Singhiya PS Case No. 166 of 2025                       instituted for the

                   offences under Section 30(a) of the Indian Penal Code.

                           3.       The prosecution case, in short, is that total 152.640

                   litres of liquor was recovered from car.

                           4.       Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

                   the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90097 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026
                                            2/3




          The names of the petitioners transpired in this case on the basis

          of     disclosure made by apprehended co-accused person.

          Learned counsel further submitted that petitioners are neither

          the owner nor the driver of the vehicle. The petitioners has got

          no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. The petitioners

          has three criminal antecedents each. There is no compliance of

          Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

          Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contends that

          prima-facie no case is made out against the petitioners.

                  5.      Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

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

          petitioners bears three criminal antecedent/s, that too of the

          similar nature, hence, petitioners 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

          petitioners bears three criminal antecedent/s, that too of the

          similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory

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

          petitioners is hereby rejected.

                  7.      However, if the petitioners surrenders before the

          court below within a period of four weeks from today and prays
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90097 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                     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)

Raj Kishore/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…