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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail application allowed: petitioner directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Sugauli P.S. Case No.161 of 2026 on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the court of the learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No.1, Civil court, East Champaran at Motihari.

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in connection with Sugauli P.S. Case No.161 of 2026, registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, given that 110 liters of country-made liquor was allegedly recovered from a bike owned by him, nothing was recovered from his possession, the seizure-list witnesses were police personnel, non-compliance with Section 105 BNSS during seizure was alleged, he had been in judicial custody since 21.03.2026, and one similar criminal antecedent was pointed out.

Court's answer

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and circumstances (including custody since 21.03.2026, the alleged absence of recovery from the petitioner's possession and the one similar antecedent), this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a 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 the learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No.1, Civil court, East Champaran at Motihari, in connection with Sugauli P.S. Case No.161 of 2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, S. 30(a) — Sugauli P.S. Case No.161 of 2026, East Champaran — Alleged recovery of 110 liters country-made liquor from a bike owned by the petitioner, with nothing recovered from his possession; witnesses to the seizure list were police personnel and non-compliance with Section 105 of the BNSS while making seizure was urged; petitioner in judicial custody since 21.03.2026; one similar criminal antecedent pointed out by the State. Held (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J., oral order dated 13-05-2026): considering the facts and circumstances, the Court was inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No.1, Civil Court, East Champaran at Motihari.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31091 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2026 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran

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

Raju Mahto S/O Bijli Mahto @ Vijli Mahto @ Vijli Mahato Resident of Village - Gidha, Chhapra Bahas, Police Station- Sugauli, District- East Champaran at Motihari.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Indu Kumari Srivastava, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

2 13-05-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sugauli P.S. Case No.161 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that altogether 110 liters country made liquor was recovered from a bike.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the bike. It has further been submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It has further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31091 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026 2/2

been submitted that the witnesses of the seizure list are police personnel and police have not complied Section 105 of the of the BNSS while making seizure. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 21.03.2026.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State. He has further submitted that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of one case of similar nature.

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 Exclsuive Special Excise Court No.1, Civil court, East Champaran at Motihari, in connection with Sugauli P.S. Case No.161 of 2026.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

Durgesh/Rohit/-

U T