Patna High Court

Ravi Mahto @ Ravi MahatoversusThe State of Bihar

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

Holding

The court held that bail may be granted despite the accused's antecedents where the evidence does not directly implicate him and the alleged recovery was from a public place, subject to conditions.

Summary

Ravi Mahto was arrested in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act after 240 litres of liquor were recovered from a farm near a river. He contended that he was falsely implicated, that no incriminating material was found in his possession, and that the liquor was recovered from an open public area based on a chowkidar’s disclosure. The State opposed bail, highlighting his seven prior criminal convictions. The court examined the lack of direct evidence against him, the circumstances of the recovery, and the length of his pre‑trial custody, and decided that bail could be granted despite his antecedents. Accordingly, the court ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs.15,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding family surety, appearance in court, and non‑tampering with evidence.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act in view of his criminal antecedents and the nature of the evidence

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 103

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
prohibition law
antecedents
evidence
Section 30
Bihar

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91942 of 2025
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2025 Thana- SAHODARA District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Ravi Mahto @ Ravi Mahato son of Yadavlal Mahto @ Jadolal Mahto
                 Resident of village- Kamta farm PS -sahodara District- West Champaran

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Sujeet Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey, 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 seeks bail in Sahodara P.S. case No.

                   91 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 240 liters

                   liquor was recovered from a farm near a river.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

                   present case.       No incriminating material has been recovered

                   from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner

                   has got no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. It is

                   further submitted that the name of the petitioner has transpired
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91942 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026
                                            2/3




          on the basis of disclosure made by local chowkidar. Recovery

          has been made from an open place accessible to public at large.

          The petitioner is in custody since 18.11.2025 and has got seven

          criminal antecedents. There is no compliance of Section 103 of

          B.N.S.S., 2023.

                      5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

          opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. The

          petitioner has seven criminal antecedents, hence, he does not

          deserve the privilege of bail.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

          of the case and the period of custody undergone by the

          petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

                       7. Let the petitioner be released on bail, after framing

          of charge, if not already framed, on furnishing bail bonds of

          Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like

          amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court

          in connection with Sahodara P.S. case No. 91 of 2025, subject

          to the following conditions:

                       (I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of

          the family of the petitioner.

                       (II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date

          fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91942 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                     consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the

                     bail bonds of the petitioner.

                                  (III) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

                     witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

                     for cancellation of bail.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Pankaj/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…