Khagaria man named in a 45-litre country-liquor raid on someone else's premises granted pre-arrest bail
Chautham police in Khagaria raided a co-accused's premises on a tip-off about stored liquor and recovered 45 litres of country-made liquor and liquor-making articles. A man from the village was also named under Bihar's prohibition law. On 19 September 2026 the Patna High Court granted him anticipatory bail, noting the recovery was from an open place accessible to all that belonged to the co-accused.
This page records what the cited court records say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →Anticipatory bail granted on 19 September 2026; the excise case is pending.
What happened
The High Court recorded that police, acting on a tip-off about storage of illicit liquor, raided the premises of a co-accused and recovered 45 litres of country-made liquor along with articles used for manufacturing liquor. The case was registered under sections 30(a), 30(c) and 36 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the recovery was from the co-accused's premises, from an open place easily accessible to all, that the petitioner's identification was doubtful, and that he had fair antecedents. The co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail by another bench.
Justice Harish Kumar granted anticipatory bail on bonds of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, one of them a close family member, on arrest or surrender before the Exclusive Special Excise Judge, Khagaria, within four weeks.
What the High Court noted
“taking note of the fact that the alleged recovery has been made from an open place easily accessible to all”
Cr. Misc. No. 65830 of 2026, order dated 19 September 2026, para 6 — read the full text
Liquor, and no one harmed
The only law charged is Bihar's prohibition statute. The order records no complainant, no injury and no allegation that the liquor was spurious.
What we could not confirm
The order does not say whether the petitioner was present at the raid or how he came to be named. His name is withheld.