Patna High Court

Rahul YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 22 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to verification of his antecedent and compliance with the stipulated conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Rahul Yadav, was implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 33 of the Bihar Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 480 litres of spirit from a car he owned. He argued that he had a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor, and was unaware that another person, Vijay, misused his vehicle. The State opposed his prayer for anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish bail bonds and two sureties, and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedent within six weeks. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, the provisional bail would be confirmed.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 482(2) of the CrPC in a case under the Bihar Excise Act
Whether ownership of the vehicle, without possession of the seized liquor, is sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
bail
excise law
ownership vs possession
clean antecedent
Section 30
Section 33
Bihar Excise Act
Section 482

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1843 of 2026
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-220 Year-2025 Thana- AMAS District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Rahul Yadav S/O Ajit Kumar Yadav R/O Quarter no. L4/11, Cross Road no.
                 12, Agrico, East Singhbhum, P.S.- Sidhgora, Dist.- Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   22-01-2026                  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

                   33 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 480 liters of spirit from a car.

                                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.1843 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
                                            2/3




          create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,

          it is also submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that

          Vijay 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 Amas

          P.S. Case No. 220 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
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1843 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                     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)
Sanjay/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…