Ranjeet Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13502 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-254 Year-2025 Thana- MADHEPUR District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Ranjeet Kumar Yadav Son of Harikishun Yadav Resident of Village- Nawada,
                 P.S.- Madhepur, District- Madhubani

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Baleshwar Kamat, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   10-03-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered

                   for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar

                   Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedents of two cases, out of which, one case

                   is under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 597

                   litres of liquor from different places, as detailed in the FIR. It is

                   next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as

                   such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and

                   even alleged recovery is from places which do not belong to the

                   petitioner and he came to be implicated based on confessional

                   statement of Ashok Dharikar in police custody, which does not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13502 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
                                            2/3




          have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that after

          amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of

          deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away

          with. It is next submitted that once an accused is implicated in a

          case    relating     to    excise,      the   police   starts   implicating

          mechanically either at the instance of Chowkidar, local person,

          confessional statement or secret information without holding a

          proper investigation.

                       4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail

          application.

                       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, is directed to be released on

          provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bond in the

          sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of

          the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special

          Judge, Excise Act, Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani in

          connection with Madhepur P.S. Case No.254 of 2025, subject to

          the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

                       6. The application stands allowed.

                       7. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13502 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
                                                           3/3




                         accepting the provisional bail bond of the petitioner shall verify

                         the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is

                         found that petitioner has antecedent of more than two cases,

                         then it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of

                         obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before

                         this Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail

                         order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found

                         that petitioner has antecedents of only two cases, in that event,

                         the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed

                         forthwith.


                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Sanjay/-

U          T