Patna High Court
Birendra Kumar Yadav @ Veer Kumar Yadav @ Virendra Kumar Yadav @ Veerbabu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Birendra Kumar Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Sections 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of liquor from two vehicles. He argued that the alleged offences were based on secret information, he was not in possession of the seized liquor, and he had a clean criminal antecedent. The State opposed the bail. The Court examined procedural defects in the bail application, ignored defects 6(1), 6(3) and 6(4), and considered the petitioner’s clean record. It granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., directing the trial court to verify his antecedent before confirming the bail. If any antecedent is found, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise it will be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. despite the alleged offences.
- Whether the procedural defects in the anticipatory bail application can be ignored.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged clean antecedent warrants grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 303(2), 3(5)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- Prohibition and Excise Act
- procedural defects
- clean antecedent
- liquor seizure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18805 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-320 Year-2025 Thana- BABUBARHI District- Madhubani
======================================================
Birendra Kumar Yadav @ Veer Kumar Yadav @ Virendra Kumar Yadav @
Veerbabu Yadav S/O Dinesh Yadav Resident of Village- Nawtoli Police
Station- Babubarahi District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md Soban Asghar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. (Mr.) Kumar Uday Pratap, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-04-2026 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 303(2) and
3(5) of the BNS, 2023 as well as Sections 30(a) and 41 of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
defect no. 6(2), as pointed out by the office, has been removed
and as far as defects no. 6(1), 6(3) and 6(4) are concerned, the
same may be ignored.
4. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the defects no.
6(1), 6(3) and 6(4) are hereby ignored.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18805 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 126 litres of liquor from a Scorpio and 42.9 litres of
liquor from a motorcycle.
6. 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 any of the seized vehicles but
then came to be implicated at the instance of the local person
but then the name of the person who disclosed the name of the
petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR which casts an aspersion
on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner has not been
implicated based on the secret information.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
8. 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.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 Babubarahi P.S. Case No. 320 of 2025,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18805 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
9. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case,
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 is a person with clean antecedent in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…