Nikesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38041 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2026 Thana- SARAI District- Vaishali ====================================================== Nikesh Kumar Son of Dasharath Singh Resident of Village- Subhai Chauk Patedha/ Jahangirpur Patera, P.S.- Sarai, District- Vaishali at Hajipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Braj Kishore Pd., APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-07-2026 Heard Mr.Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Braj Kishore Pd., learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sarai P.S.Case No.56 of 2026,FIR dated 26.02.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a),32,33,34,36,41 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Recovery is of 2550.125 liters of Indian made foreign liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. From a bare perusal of the FIR as well as the seizure list it appears that altogether 2550.125 liters of Indian made foreign liquor was recovered from the

2/4 place of occurrence. Name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis of the disclosure made by the apprehended co-accused person, namely, Vicky Kumar. It appears from the FIR as well as the seizure list that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and except the confessional statement of co-accused person, nothing has come during investigation against the petitioner to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence. There is non-compliance 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. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the pre-arrest bail would not be maintainable.

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) PLJR 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, petitioner has clean antecedent, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis of the disclosure made by apprehended co-accused person, 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 Prohibition and Excise Court(II)-cum-District and Additional Sessions Court Judge, Hajipur, Vaishali in connection with Sarai P.S.Case No.

4/4 reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) 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.

(III) 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/her 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) Nitesh/- U T