BR 50 VC 0001Supaul, Bihar19 September 2026

Supaul man accused over 41.4 litres of liquor found in a bush granted provisional pre-arrest bail

Excise police at Simrahi in Supaul booked a man under Bihar's prohibition law over 41.4 litres of liquor recovered from a bush, a place his counsel said was open to the public and not his. He was named at the instance of a local person. On 19 September 2026 the Patna High Court granted him provisional anticipatory bail.

Prosecution pendingV2
What this record means

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 →

Provisional anticipatory bail granted on 19 September 2026; S.T. Excise Case No. 1313 of 2025 is pending.

What happened

The High Court recorded that the case was registered under section 30(a) of the Excise Act over the recovery of 41.4 litres of liquor from a bush, and that the petitioner has one earlier case under the Excise Act.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that he was not arrested from the spot, the recovery was from a place that did not belong to him and was accessible to the public at large, and he was implicated at the instance of a local person who had not informed the police before the FIR.

Justice Satyavrat Verma granted provisional anticipatory bail on bonds of Rs 5,000 with two sureties, on arrest or surrender within six weeks, to be confirmed if the trial court finds no more than the one disclosed antecedent.

What the High Court recorded

“even alleged recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioner and is accessible to public at large”

Cr. Misc. No. 65634 of 2026, order dated 19 September 2026, para 4 (the petitioner's submission) — read the full text

Liquor, and no one harmed

The only law charged is Bihar's prohibition statute. The order records no complainant and no harm to any person.

What we could not confirm

The petitioner has one earlier Excise Act case, as the order records. The order makes no finding on the facts. Names are withheld.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.