IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27633 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== 1. Prdeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar S/o Bhola Mandal R/o village-Khurd Lodipur, P.S.- Lodipur, District- Bhagalpur 2. Pravesh Kumar S/O Bijendra Prasad Yadav village- Pirnagra P.S.- Khagaria District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramesh Chandra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 14-05-2025 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Excise (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 32 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. 3. The police on a secret information conducted raid and seized Renault Kwid car having Registration No. BR10AM- 8894. In course of search, total 72.750 liters of Indian made foreign liquor and further 2.400 liters of country made liquor; total 75.150 liters of illicit wine were recovered. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27633 of 2025(2) dt.14-05-2025 2/3 the petitioner no. 1 happens to be driver of the car, in question, further petitioner no. 2 is the registered owner of the same. Referring to the FIR, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that it does not stand to the reason that when the car was locked, then how the informant opened the car and conducted search and seizure. There is no whisper that the lock of the car was broken. In fact on the fateful day, the petitioner no. 1, who happens to be driver of the car had parked the same near the house of Bipin Singh, with whom the petitioner no. 2 has enmity. Thereafter, in collusion with the police personnel, the name of the petitioners have been implicated in this case, showing recovery from the car. The aforesaid fact also fortified for the simple reason that the said Bipin Singh is also one of the seizure list witness. It is further contended that there are various other irregularities in the search and seizure and the specific provision of the BNSS has not been followed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that the alleged recovery has been made from the car, of which the petitioners are driver and owner, respectively and, as such, in view of the rigors provided under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, the application for anticipatory bail Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27633 of 2025(2) dt.14-05-2025 3/3 is not maintainable. 6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and also the infirmities shown in the search and seizure, coupled with the fair antecedent of the petitioners and the available materials which do not attract the provisions of Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, let the petitioners above named be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge – IX – cum Spl. Judge Excise – 01, Bhagalpur in connection with Excise (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 32 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioners. shivank/- (Harish Kumar, J) U T