Patna High Court
Mahesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail may be granted conditionally, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the inadmissibility of a custodial confessional statement as sole evidence.
Summary
The petitioner, Mahesh Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act concerning the alleged recovery of 40 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He argued that he was not arrested at the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicle, and that the prosecution’s case relied on a confessional statement made in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warranted detention. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties and appear before the trial court within six weeks. The order further stipulated that the trial court verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and that the bail would be confirmed only if he is found to have at most one prior case; otherwise, the bail would be revoked. The decision hinged on the applicability of Section 482(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the assessment of the confessional statement’s admissibility.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody has evidentiary value for the purpose of denying bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- excise law
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2) CrPC
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41686 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2025 Thana- BARHAT District- Jamui
======================================================
Mahesh Yadav S/o Uttam Yadav Resident of Village- Guguldih, P.O.-
Guguldih, P.S.- Barhat, District- Jamui- 811305 (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rahul Mani
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Syed Mojibur Rahman
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 40 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of the
seized vehicle and he came to be implicated based on confessional
statement of Rahul in police custody which does not have any
evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41686 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
2/2
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of
his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of
six weeks from today, be released on Provisional anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection
with Barhat P.S. Case No. 115 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event
if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case then
it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of seeking
anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this Court, as
such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed,
but after verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of
one case in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.