Patna High Court

Sanjay YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 12 March 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedent.

Summary

The petitioner, Sanjay Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, alleging that only 1 litre of liquor was recovered from his motorcycle and that he had no conscious possession of the contraband. He argued that he had a clean antecedent and that the vehicle was misused by his son, who was apprehended at the spot. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent. If any prior case is found, the bail would be cancelled; otherwise, it would be confirmed. The application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
Whether ownership of the vehicle, without conscious possession of liquor, suffices to justify arrest.
Whether a clean antecedent is a condition for granting anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Section 30(a)
vehicle ownership
clean antecedent
provisional bail

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13741 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-735 Year-2024 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Jamui
                 ======================================================
                 Sanjay Yadav Son of Nageshwar Yadav R/o Village - Baladih, P.S.- Jamui,
                 District - Jamui.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Umesh Prasad, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   12-03-2026                  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 Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 1 litre 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 he

                   came to be implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the

                   seized vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would

                   use his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus,

                   would create evidence against himself and hence, would get
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13741 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
                                            2/3




          implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was completely

          unaware that his son Sunny Kumar would misuse the vehicle in

          the manner as alleged, who was also apprehended from the spot.

                       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.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with two sureties of the

          like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Excise

          Court-II, Jamui in connection with Prohibition & Excise Jamui

          P.S. Case No.735 of 2024, 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

          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 even one case, then it

          would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining

          anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before this Court,
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13741 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
                                                           3/3




                         in that event, the present 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)

Sanjay/-

U          T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…