Dismissed¶22

Ram Bharos Sahni v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC30 Jan 2026CR. MISC./4616/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act Sections 30(a) and 41(1); Mahishi P.S. Case No. 323/2025, Thana Mahishi, District Saharsa; 360 litres liquor recovered from car; petitioner neither owner nor driver of vehicle (per counsel); no compliance of Section 103 BNSS 2023 (per counsel); two criminal antecedents of similar nature; surrender within six weeks and regular bail on own merit; APP Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara; counsel Binod Murari Mishra; single judge Rudra Prakash Mishra; CR. MISC. No.4616 of 2026 dated 30-01-2026; Patna High Court.

What did the court decide?

Conditional direction only: if the petitioner surrenders before the learned court below within six weeks and prays for regular bail, it shall be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. ¶22

Ram Bharos Sahni Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who apprehends arrest in Mahishi P.S. Case No. 323/2025 (offences under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act; alleged recovery of 360 litres of liquor from a car; two criminal antecedents of similar nature), should be granted anticipatory bail.

¶14

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including that the petitioner has two criminal antecedents of similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.

¶22

Key takeaways

If the petitioner surrenders before the learned court below within a period of six weeks and prays for regular bail, that application shall be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — refused (Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.4616 of 2026, decided 30-01-2026, Rudra Prakash Mishra, J). The petitioner apprehends arrest in Mahishi P.S. Case No. 323/2025 (District Saharsa), instituted for offences under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act; the prosecution case is that total 360 litres of liquor was recovered from a car. Counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated, was neither owner nor driver of the vehicle, had no concern with the alleged recovery, and that there was no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; the petitioner has two criminal antecedents of similar nature. Considering these circumstances, the Court declined anticipatory bail and rejected the prayer, while directing that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned court below within six weeks, his regular-bail application shall be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. No precedent cases were cited.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4616 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-323 Year-2025 Thana- MAHISHI District- Saharsa

¶3

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

¶4

Ram Bharos Sahni Son of Bauka Sahni R/O Village - Jamalpur, P.S.Jamalpur, District - Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Murari Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 30-01-2026

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶14

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahishi P.S. Case No. 323/2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act

¶15

The prosecution case, in short, is that total 360 litres of liquor was recovered from car.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner is neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle. The petitioner has got no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. Learned counsel,

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4616 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026 2/2

¶18

therefore, submitted that prima-facie, no case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner has two criminal antecedents. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶19

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

¶20

the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also the petitioner has two criminal antecedents of similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

¶23

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

¶24

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶25

atul/-

¶26

U T

Ram Bharos Sahni v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bharos Sahni v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Prince Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rinku Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Yusuf Siddiqui Vs The State of Bihar

Rampravesh Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Balam Manjhi @ Balam Vs The State of Bihar