Rakesh Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rakesh Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge (Excise)-II, Kaimur at Bhabhua in connection with Bhabhua Excise P.S. Case No.68 of 2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail in connection with Bhabhua Excise P.S. Case No.68 of 2026, registered for offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 32(i)(iii) & 41(i)(ii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.

Court's answer

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail; the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge (Excise)-II, Kaimur at Bhabhua in connection with Bhabhua Excise P.S. Case No.68 of 2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Rakesh v. The State of Bihar (Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.21106 of 2026, decided 02-04-2026, Ashok Kumar Pandey, J.): Petitioner, arraigned in Bhabhua Excise P.S. Case No.68 of 2026 registered under Sections 30(a), 32(i)(iii) & 41(i)(ii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act following alleged recovery of 225 liters of illicit foreign liquor from a car, enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Judge (Excise)-II, Kaimur at Bhabhua. Petitioner's counsel had submitted that he was merely the driver, unaware of the liquor, that nothing was recovered from his possession, that seizure-list witnesses were police personnel and Section 105 BNSS was allegedly not complied with at seizure, and that he had no criminal antecedent and was in judicial custody since 08.02.2026.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21106 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Kaimur (Bhabua)

======================================================

Rakesh S/O Sunera Resident of R/O Village- Gorar (52-R), P.S- Kharkhoda, Distt.- Sonipat, Hariyana.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aquaib Khan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

2 02-04-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Bhabhua Excise P.S. Case No.68 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a), 32(i)(iii) & 41(i)(ii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that altogether 225 liters of illicit foreign liquor was recovered from a car.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is driver of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was unaware of the alleged liquor in the vehicle. It has further been submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of this petitioner. Learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21106 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026 2/2

counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the witnesses of the seizure list are police personnel and police have not complied Section 105 of the BNSS while making seizure. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is in judicial custody since 08.02.2026.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge (Excise)-II, Kaimur at Bhabhua in connection with Bhabhua Excise P.S. Case No.68 of 2026.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

durgesh/-

U T