Bhojpur man booked over 4.5 litres of liquor found in a relative's bathroom granted pre-arrest bail
Acting on a tip-off, Ara Muffasil police raided a house and recovered 4.5 litres of Indian-made foreign liquor from a bathroom in the courtyard, then booked a man under Bihar's prohibition law. His counsel said the seizure memo placed the recovery in his brother's house. On 30 September 2026 the Patna High Court granted him anticipatory bail, noting discrepancies in the search and seizure.
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 30 September 2026; the case is before the Exclusive Special Excise Court No. 1, Bhojpur at Ara.
What happened
The High Court recorded that police acted on a tip-off about the sale and storage of illicit liquor and allegedly recovered 4.5 litres of Indian-made foreign liquor from a bathroom in the courtyard of the house.
The petitioner's counsel submitted that the seizure memo shows the recovery from the house of the petitioner's brother, that the only seizure witnesses were police personnel, and that no video recording of the search was made as Section 105 of the BNSS requires. The State said the petitioner has three criminal antecedents.
Justice Harish Kumar granted anticipatory bail on bonds of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, on arrest or surrender within four weeks, citing the search-and-seizure discrepancies, non-compliance with Sections 103(4) and 105 of the BNSS, and the recovery from another person's house.
What the High Court noted
“taking note of the discrepancies in causing search and seizure”
Cr. Misc. No. 69989 of 2026, order dated 30 September 2026, para 6 — read the full text
Liquor, and no one harmed
The only law charged is Bihar's prohibition statute, over a small quantity of liquor. The order records no complainant and no harm to any person.
What we could not confirm
The State told the court the petitioner has three criminal antecedents, which the order does not describe. The order makes no finding on the facts. The petitioner is not named here; the order names his brother as the occupant of the house.