Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30749/2026bail granted

Mahesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-01Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30749 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Nawada ====================================================== Mahesh Kumar Son of Gopal Prasad Yadav Resident of Village- Karpuri Nagar, Sughari, Pathra, P.S.- Govindpur (Thali), District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Man Mohan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-07-2026 Heard Mr. Man Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Sharda Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest connection with Nawada Excise P.S. Case No. 65 of 2026, F.I.R. dated 18.01.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) & 41 of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016.

3. Recovery is of 117.00 liters of foreign liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the ground that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R. that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather recovery has been

2/4 made from the vehicle in question and one Rahul Kumar was arrested at the place of occurrence and he has disclosed that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question. Therefore, the recovery cannot be attributed to the petitioner. There is noncompliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100 of Cr. P.C./ Section 103 of BNSS, 2023 No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the prearrest bail would not be maintainable. He further submits that the petitioner carries one more case other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail petition that the same is not pertaining to excise matter and the petitioner is on bail in the pending matter.

6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in 2019(2) P.LJ.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant

3/4 of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of counsel for the petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has been made accused merely on the ground that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Court, Excise-2, Nawada in connection with Nawada Excise PS. Case No. 65 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 and with other following conditions:-

1. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

2. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

4/4 witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

3. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U T