Irshad Alam @ Irshad Azam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43770 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2024 Thana- Panapur District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Irshad Alam @ Irshad Azam S/o Ghousul Ajam Ansari Resident of VillageBathua Bazar, P.S.- Qazipur, District- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-07-2026 Heard Mr. Abhyanand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Panapur Kariyat P.S. Case No. 163 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act as amended up-to-date.

3. Allegation is of recovery of 604.8 litres of illicit foreign liquor from a vehicle bearing Registration No. BR28AA7770 registered in the name of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner had already sold his vehicle on 29.10.2024 to one Syed Hamid Wali, when a confiscation notice was issued to him on 10.06.2025 and he had taken steps to pay the fine subsequent to his knowledge that the vehicle has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43770 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026 2/2 not been transferred in the name of the buyer, who was in possession of the said vehicle but he has not been arrayed as an accused in the FIR. On these grounds, petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the FIR and the document brought on record by the petitioner. The sale letter duly notarized dated 29.10.2024 and the date of the FIR is 17.12.2024. The very genuinnity of the sale letter appears to be in question. Even after the sale of the vehicle, the petitioner has not taken any steps in accordance with the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and his involvement in smuggling/sale of prohibited item in the State of Bihar cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on prearrest bail.

7. The present bail application is dismissed. (Purnendu Singh, J) Niraj/- U T