Patna High Court
Sintu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent and compliance with the conditions imposed under Section 482(2).
Summary
The petitioner, Sintu Yadav, was implicated in an excise case (Case No. 366 of 2025) for the alleged recovery of 10 litres of liquor from a motorcycle he owned. He contended that he had a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor, and was unaware that another individual, Vishal, misused his vehicle. The State opposed his prayer for anticipatory bail. The High Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, the provisional bail would be confirmed. The decision was made under the inherent powers of the Court pursuant to Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in the context of the excise offence.
- Whether the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle, without possession of the seized liquor, suffices to justify anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
- Section 482
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15971 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-366 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Banka
======================================================
Sintu Yadav son of Anirudh Yadav Resident of village- Baja P S -Amarpur
District -Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kanhiya Kishor, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 06-04-2026 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)
32(3) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 10 liters of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15971 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
2/3
create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,
it is also submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that
Vishal would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged who
was also apprehended from the spot.
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 before the learned Trial Court
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 Banka
Excise P.S. Case No. 366 of 2025 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
confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15971 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
3/3
person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…