Sikandar Kumar @ Sikander Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34570 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2026 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Sikandar Kumar @ Sikander Kumar Son of Jogendra Prasad @ Jogendara Prasad @ Yogendra Prasad Resident of village- Saidpur, Police StationMakhdumpur (Tehta), District- Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 19-05-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Makhdumpur(Tehta) P.S. Case No. 136 of 2026 for the offence under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act lodged on 15.02.2026 by the informant, Poonam Chaudhary.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that on secret information raided the house of the petitioner and there is recovery/seizure of 104.025 liters foreign liquor . This led to the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession rather from a common house and further allegation has also been made

2/4 against one Gudiya Devi.

5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in 2019 (2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar under Section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made out.

6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that he has criminal antecedent.

7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as also that nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession rather from a common house, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions.

8. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the

3/4 satisfaction of learned Special Excise Judge-I, Jehanabad in connection with Makhdumpur(Tehta) P.S. Case No. 136 of 2026 subject to the following conditions:

(i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the Police Station as and when required for cooperating in the investigation;

(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

(iv) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned police station every fortnight for next one year to mark his attendance and after the end of the period, the certificate shall be submitted before the Trial Court failing which steps shall be taken for the cancellation of the bail bonds; (v) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;

4/4 (vi) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) Vinayak/Anjali U T