Patna High Court
Nanhak Yadav @ Nanhku Yadav @ Nank 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 the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and compliance with the conditions under Section 438 CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Nanhak Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 30(d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of liquor and Jawa Mahua from a forest area. He contended that he was not arrested on the spot, had no possession, and was implicated by a hostile chawkidar without prior police notice, suggesting a mechanically driven investigation. The State opposed the bail. The Court considered the petitioner's claim of lack of direct involvement and the possibility of a false implication, while noting his prior three cases under the Excise Act. It ordered provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.15,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent. If more than three prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed; if only three, the provisional order would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged prior criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- false implication
- criminal antecedent
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12053 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-291 Year-2025 Thana- CHAKAND District- Gaya
======================================================
Nanhak Yadav @ Nanhku Yadav @ Nank Yadav Son of Deo Sharan Yadav @
Durga Yadav Resident of Village - Dali Bigha PS - Chakand District - Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Iftekhar Mahmood, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 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 Sections 30(a) and
30(d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act,
2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of three cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 200 litres of liquor along with 500
litres of Jawa Mahua from the forest area.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
and is accessible to villagers at large. It is further submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12053 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/3
petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of the
Chawkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is next
submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement
of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform
the police prior to the institution of the instant FIR which casts
an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted
that once an accused is implicated in a case relating to excise the
police start implicating mechanically either at the instance of the
Chawkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret
information without holding a proper investigation of the case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let the petitioner,
above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on provisional
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen 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 Chakand P.S.
Case No. 291 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12053 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
3/3
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than
three cases, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed
his antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner has antecedent of only three cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…