Sumit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43867 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2026 Thana- KIUL RAIL P.S. District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Sumit Kumar S/o Sunil Mandal R/o vill - Dalsinagara Tola, Garhibishanpur, P.S. and Distt.- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 08-07-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Rail P.S. Kiul Case No. 64 of 2026 for the offence under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per the prosecution story, the Police upon secret information, reached the place and intercepted a black colour bag containing 15 liter foreign liquor at Kiul Junction. Sanjeet Kumar and Sonu Kumar were arrested and they gave the name of the third person who escaped as this petitioner. This led to the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession and only because he has one criminal antecedent, got implicated.

2/4

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 those arrested named him.

7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as also that recovery/seizure has been shown from Sanjeet Kumar and Sonu Kumar, nothing from his conscious possession, 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 satisfaction of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-

3/4 VII-cum-Ananya Special Excise Court-II, Lakhisarai in connection with Rail P.S. Kiul Case No. 64 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(s) shall be appearing before the Police Station as and when required for co-operating 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 six months 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) Vijay Singh/- U T