Patna High Court
Vishal YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to verification of antecedents and compliance with conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Vishal Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging that he was implicated in the recovery of 27 litres of liquor from a motorcycle despite having no prior criminal record and no possession of the seized vehicle. The petitioner argued that the allegation was based solely on a confessional statement of another accused made in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, contending that the offence warranted denial of anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a modest bail bond and two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents by the trial court. It further directed that if any prior case is discovered, the provisional bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether a confessional statement of a co-accused made in police custody can form a basis for denying anticipatory bail.
- Whether lack of possession of the seized liquor and non-ownership of the vehicle preclude arrest and justify bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- liquor seizure
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1069 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-484 Year-2025 Thana- BHORE District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Vishal Yadav S/o Ramawati Devi (Mother), Rambilash Yadav (Father)
Resident of Village- Kharauni Khas, P.S.- Mirganj, Dist.- Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashwat Sahil Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 20-01-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 27 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. It is next
submitted that 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 apprehended accused in
police custody which does not have any evidentiary value.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1069 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026
2/2
5. 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 Court below
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) 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 Bhore
P.S. Case No.484/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one
case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had
concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if
on verification it is found that petitioner is a person with clean
antecedent, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…