Case Background
The case began with a surprise checking of a bus at the Integrated Check Post, Rajouli, in Nawada district.
On 11.08.2017 at about 01:30 AM, a bus bearing Registration No. BR-06PA/6651, travelling from Ranchi to Raxaul, was stopped by the Inspector (Excise), Nawada, along with other excise officials and SAP force.
During the search, the officials claimed to have recovered a bag containing 6.75 litres of illicit liquor from in front of the seat of one passenger, who later became the petitioner before the Patna High Court.
On the basis of this recovery, G.O. Case No. 837 of 2017 was registered, and later, by order dated 20.03.2020, the learned ADJ-II-cum-Special Judge, Nawada took cognizance of an offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
The petitioner is a Lance Naik in the Indian Army. He was travelling from Ranchi and was on his way to Varanasi. He had obtained leave from his unit, and a copy of the leave order was placed before the High Court as Annexure-2.
Feeling aggrieved by the cognizance order dated 20.03.2020, the petitioner moved the Patna High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 73433 of 2025. He filed this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of the cognizance order and the entire criminal proceeding under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The matter was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh on 16.12.2025. The Court heard Ms. Bharti Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. Shaheen Begum, learned APP for the State of Bihar.
The petitioner’s side argued that no liquor was recovered from his personal or conscious possession. According to him, the liquor was found merely lying in front of his seat in the bus. He stated that he was forced to sign the seizure list by the excise officials only on suspicion, because the bag was found near him.
It was stressed that he was a Lance Naik in the Indian Army and, as per his rank, he is allotted a monthly liquor quota by the Army. Therefore, there was no question of carrying liquor for sale into Jharkhand or elsewhere, especially in violation of State prohibition laws.
The defence also relied upon the settled legal principle that mere proximity to contraband is not enough to fix criminal liability. There must be “conscious possession” — meaning control plus knowledge — to attract Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. On this basis, the petitioner’s counsel contended that continuing the case would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and sought quashing in terms of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604).
On the other hand, the learned APP for the State submitted that the cognizance order was rightly passed. According to the State, the order was based on the materials on record, including the statements of witnesses and the seizure of liquor near the petitioner’s seat. The State argued that the learned ADJ-II-cum-Special Judge, Nawada had committed no error in taking cognizance in G.O. Case No. 837 of 2017.
After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court turned to the legal framework governing search, seizure and possession.
The Court first reproduced Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, which punishes unlawful manufacture, import, export, transport, possession, sale, purchase, distribution, etc. of any intoxicant or liquor in contravention of the Act, its rules, notifications, or without a valid licence or permit.
The Court then set out Section 56 of the same Act dealing with “things liable for confiscation”, including liquor unlawfully imported, transported, manufactured, sold, stored or possessed, vehicles used for carrying such liquor, and premises used for storing or manufacturing liquor. The provision also authorises the State Government to issue guidelines on search, seizure and confiscation.
Alongside the special statute, the Court reproduced Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which lays down the procedure for search of a closed place. This provision requires, as far as practicable, the presence of two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality as witnesses to the search, preparation of a seizure list, and handing over a signed copy of the list to the occupant or the person searched.
From these provisions, the Court noted that the statutory scheme aims to ensure fairness, transparency and credibility of the search process. The Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act does not function in isolation; rather, it incorporates and reinforces the safeguards and procedures of the Cr.P.C. for search and seizure.
Turning to the facts, the Court examined the allegations in the prosecution report and the seizure list. It noted that the petitioner was travelling from Ranchi to Varanasi and that the alleged seizure took place at Rajouli Chowk. The bag containing 6.75 litres (or 12 bottles) of liquor was found in front of his seat in the bus, and not on his person.
The seizure list itself revealed that the labels on all the seized bottles bore the wording “only for sale in Jharkhand”. The Court also noted from the record that the petitioner, as Lance Naik in the Indian Army, is allotted a monthly liquor quota as per his rank. In such a situation, the Court observed that the question arises whether the seized liquor actually belonged to the petitioner at all.
To answer this, the Court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 222. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that “possession” in criminal law must necessarily mean “conscious possession” — involving dominion and control over the item, coupled with knowledge of its existence. Mere proximity or presence near the contraband is not enough to impose criminal liability.
The Supreme Court, as quoted by the Patna High Court, had discussed factors that help determine possession, such as the degree of physical control, knowledge about the thing, the person’s intention regarding it (“animus possidendi” and “animus domini”), and the context in which the thing is lying. This reinforces that possession is a functional and relative concept, not a rigid label to be attached just because something is found nearby.
Applying this test, the Patna High Court held that, on the admitted facts, the liquor was recovered from the front seat of the bus, not from the physical possession or direct control of the petitioner. There was no material on record to show that he had conscious knowledge, control or dominion over the bag containing liquor.
The Court then referred to the well-known judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604). In that case, the Apex Court had laid down illustrative categories where the High Court can use its extraordinary powers to quash criminal proceedings, for example: where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not make out any offence; where the allegations are absurd or inherently improbable; or where continuation of the case would amount to abuse of the process of the court.
In the present matter, the Patna High Court found that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act were missing. Without proof of conscious possession, mere recovery of liquor from a place near the petitioner in a public bus could not, by itself, justify putting him through a full criminal trial.
The Court concluded that, in the absence of any material demonstrating conscious knowledge, control or dominion over the alleged contraband, continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the quashing petition. It quashed and set aside the order taking cognizance dated 20.03.2020 passed in G.O. Case No. 837 of 2017 by the learned ADJ-II-cum-Special Judge, Nawada. As a result, the criminal case against the petitioner under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, stood terminated.
The quashing application was disposed of with these directions.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for people who travel by public transport in Bihar and other prohibition States.
It makes clear that a person cannot be prosecuted only because liquor is found near his seat in a bus or other vehicle. The prosecution must show that the person had conscious possession — that he knew about the liquor and had control over it.
The decision also reminds investigating officers that search and seizure must follow the procedure in the Cr.P.C. and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. Proper seizure lists, independent witnesses, and clear proof of possession are necessary before dragging someone into a criminal trial.
For members of disciplined forces, like the Army, who have lawful access to liquor under their own service rules, this judgment shows that courts will still look closely at the facts before assuming illegal dealing in liquor.
Overall, the Patna High Court has reinforced that prohibition laws, while strict, cannot be used to harass innocent travellers merely on suspicion.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether the recovery of liquor from a bag lying in front of the petitioner’s seat in a bus, without more, was enough to prosecute him under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
Answer: No. The Court held there was no material to show conscious possession, i.e., knowledge, control or dominion over the liquor by the petitioner. -
Issue: Whether continuation of the criminal proceeding, in the absence of proof of conscious possession, should be allowed to continue to trial.
Answer: No. Relying on Mohan Lal and Bhajan Lal, the Court held that continuing such a case would amount to abuse of process, and therefore quashed the cognizance order.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 6 SCC 222
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 73433 of 2025 (arising out of G.O. Case No. 837 of 2017, P.S. Government Official Comp., District Nawada)
Case Title: Raj Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Citation: 2026(1) PLJR 420
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh
Advocates: Ms. Bharti Kumari, Advocate for the petitioner; Mrs. Shaheen Begum, APP for the State
Date of Judgment: 16.12.2025 (Uploading Date: 24.12.2025)
Nature of Case: Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of cognizance order under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016
Provision(s) Involved: Section 30(a) and Section 56 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016; Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; principles under Article 226/Section 482 Cr.P.C. as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604)
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court judgment text
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
