Patna High Court

Mukesh Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 9 March 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and compliance with stipulated conditions.

Summary

Mukesh Kumar Yadav sought relief fearing arrest in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of 126 litres of liquor from a bush adjacent to his house. He argued that he had no prior criminal record and that the liquor was not found in his possession, contending that the complaint was prompted by a chowkidar whose prior knowledge raised doubts about the prosecution’s case. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. Justice Satyavrat Verma, after considering the submissions, ordered provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and surrender within six weeks. The order further directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent, stating that any undisclosed prior case would invalidate the bail, while a clean record would lead to confirmation of the bail.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the circumstances of the case
Whether the alleged recovery of liquor constitutes sufficient ground for arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bihar Excise Act
Section 30
provisional bail
criminal antecedent

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12463 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2026 Thana- Karnamepur District- Bhojpur
                 ======================================================
                 Mukesh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Dayanand Yadav @ Matubar Yadav R/o
                 Village - Kariman Thakur ke Dera, P.S - Karnamepur, District - Bhojpur at
                 Ara

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Shankar Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   09-03-2026               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 is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 126 litres of liquor from a bush near the house of

                   the petitioner.

                             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 even the alleged

                   recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12463 of 2026(2) dt.09-03-2026
                                            2/3




          but then is adjacent to his house. It is next submitted that he

          came to be implicated at the instance of Chowkidar but then it is

          submitted that if the Chowkidar was aware about the

          involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence, then why he did

          not inform the police prior to institution of the instant FIR,

          which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.

                   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 for the petitioner, 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. 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 Karnamepur P.S. Case No. 4 of 2026, 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 even 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
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12463 of 2026(2) dt.09-03-2026
                                                          3/3




                        confirmed, but after verification if 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)
Sumit/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…