Dinesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13867 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-424 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Nawada
                 ======================================================
                 Dinesh Yadav S/o Ram Chandra Yadav R/o Village - Mohkama, P.S - Rajauli,
                 District - Nawada
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   12-03-2026                  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 Sections 30(a) and

                   47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of four cases out of which three cases

                   are under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 110

                   litres of liquor from a motorcycle.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was

                   recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted

                   that petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to

                   be implicated based on the disclosure made by the local person

                   but then name of the person who disclosed the name of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13867 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
                                            2/3




          petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR which casts an aspersion

          on the case of the prosecution. It is next 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, secret information or confessional

          statement without holding a proper investigation of the case. It

          is also submitted that petitioner in similar manner earlier also

          came to be implicated in cases relating to excise.

                       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, 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.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty 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 Excise P.S. Case No. 424 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.

                       7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial

          Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13867 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
                                                       3/3




                     it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than four 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 four cases in that event the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T