Patna High Court
Sonu Yadav @ Sonu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonu Yadav, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 100 litres of liquor. The petitioner argued that he has a clean antecedent, the alleged liquor was recovered from a place not belonging to him, and the only evidence against him is a confessional statement made by Nand Lal while in police custody, which lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500 with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent. The order further stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the provisional bail would not be confirmed, whereas a clean record would lead to immediate confirmation of the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody can be the basis to deny anticipatory bail.
- What conditions should be imposed on provisional anticipatory bail, including verification of antecedent.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- bail bond
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1534 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-834 Year-2025 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka
======================================================
Sonu Yadav @ Sonu Kumar S/o Moti Yadav R/o vill - Digghi Pokhar, P.S.-
Amarpur, Distt.- Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shubhesh Pandey
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Meena Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 100 litres of liquor from a sack.
4. The 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 alleged
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioner
and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of
Nand Lal in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1534 of 2026(2) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
value.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. 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-bonds in the
sum 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
Amarpur P. S. Case No.834 of 2025, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds 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,
in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall
not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1534 of 2026(2) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…