Santosh Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47630 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2026 Thana- Krishnabraham District- Buxar ====================================================== Santosh Ram son of Nandji Ram Resident Of Village- Nenuon Police Station -Krishnabrahm District -Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 22-07-2026 Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Krishnabrahm P.S. Case No. 89 of 2026 for the offences under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act lodged on 01.06.2026 by the informant, Vinay Singh.
3. As per the prosecution story, the police on secret information, went to the house and near the house from the straw, there is a recovery/seizure of 13.710 liters of foreign liquor, his brother, Mantosh Ram was arrested. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
2/4 brother already stands arrested, he have no role to play and nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession, only because of criminal antecedent, got implicated.
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 for anticipatory bail.
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, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions.
9. 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/-
3/4 (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Excise Special Judge, Court No.2, Buxar in connection with Krishnabrahm P.S. Case No. 89 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 month 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
4/4 cancellation of the bail bonds;
(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) ankita/- U T