Patna High Court
Parmeshwar Yadav @ Prameshwar PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, provisional anticipatory bail may be granted under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
Parmeshwar Yadav, owner of a vehicle from which 88.800 litres of liquor were seized, was charged under Sections 30(a) and 50(b) of the Bihar Excise Act. He contended that he had a clean antecedent, was not arrested at the spot, and that the liquor was carried by his son without his knowledge. He applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that ownership of the vehicle alone should not make him liable. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent before confirming the bail. If any antecedent is found, the bail may be cancelled; otherwise it will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in view of the allegations under Sections 30(a) and 50(b) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether mere ownership of the vehicle from which liquor was recovered can justify arrest and denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- vehicle ownership
- liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- Section 30
- Section 50
- BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17810 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-596 Year-2019 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP.
District- Gaya
======================================================
Parmeshwar Yadav @ Prameshwar Prasad Son of Late Jagdish Yadav
Resident of Village- Karihara, P.S.- Tankuppa, District- Gaya,
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gajendra Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pronoti Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-03-2026 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
50(b) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 88.800 litres of liquor from a car.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17810 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026
2/3
his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would
create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,
it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware
that his son, Pawan, would misuse the vehicle in the manner as
alleged, who was also apprehended from the spot along with
Uday.
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 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 Gaya Excise P.S. Case No. 596 of 2019, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17810 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026
3/3
Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed, but after verification if 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)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…