Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ramji Yadav @ Ramjee YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioners, directing them to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each.

Summary

The petitioners, Ramji Yadav and Sonu Yadav, were implicated in a special excise case for allegedly escaping with 150 litres of country liquor, based solely on the statement of a co-accused. They were not apprehended at the scene, have no prior criminal record, and have been in custody since 7 January 2026. The petitioners applied for regular bail under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, claiming false implication. The State opposed the bail. Considering the lack of direct evidence, the absence of prior convictions, and the fact that their names appeared only in a co-accused statement, the Court ordered that bail be granted on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each, subject to the satisfaction of the Special Excise Judge. The order was pronounced by Justice Partha Sarthy.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused when their involvement is alleged only through a co-accused's statement and they have no prior criminal record.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • regular bail
  • excise law
  • false implication
  • co-accused statement
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • section 30(a)

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10367 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-369 Year-2025 Thana- DULHIN BAZAR District- Patna
                 ======================================================
           1.     Ramji Yadav @ Ramjee Yadav S/O Late Sarad Yadav @ Shradha Yadav
           2.     Sonu Yadav S/O Wakil Yadav
                  Both R/O Village- Gulalchak, P.S- Dulhin Bazar, District- Patna.
                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                       ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Chandrashekhar Prasad, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Ms. Anita Kumari, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                                       ORAL ORDER
2   17-02-2026                     1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                   2. The petitioners have preferred this application for

                   grant of regular bail in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case

                   no.369 of 2025 (Special Excise Case no.28 of 2026) registered

                   under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act,

                   2016.

                                     3. As per the prosecution case, seeing the police

                   personnel, it is stated that three accused persons including the

                   two petitioners herein managed to escape. Dindayal Yadav and

                   Sunil Yadav were caught and 150 litres of country liquor was

                   recovered. On enquiry, they disclosed the name of the persons

                   who had managed to escape and which included the petitioners

                   herein.

                                     4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

                   the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. From
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10367 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      the contents of the FIR itself, it would transpire that they were

                      not caught at the place of occurrence and their name has

                      transpired only in the statement of a co-accused made before

                      police. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent and are in

                      custody since 7.1.2026.

                                  5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P.

                      for the State.

                                      6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                      taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the

                      petitioners not having been arrested at the spot, their name

                      having transpired in the statement of a co-accused made before

                      police, both of them being in custody since 7.1.2026 and not

                      having any criminal antecedent, the Court directs both the

                      petitioners to be enlarged on bail in connection with Dulhin

                      Bazar P.S. Case no.369 of 2025 (Special Excise Case no.28 of

                      2026) on each of them furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/

                      (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

                      each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Excise Judge,

                      Danapur, District Patna.


                                                  (Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.