Patna High Court
Ramesh Anup YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court provisionally granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of his criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramesh Anup Yadav, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act for alleged recovery of 29.625 litres of liquor from his motorcycle. He argued that the liquor was not found in his conscious possession, that he was unaware of his friend's misuse of the vehicle, and that ownership of the vehicle alone should not constitute incriminating evidence. The State opposed the bail, contending that the offence warranted detention. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to a Rs.5,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents within six weeks. The order stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.
- Whether ownership of a vehicle used in the alleged offence, without conscious possession of the contraband, suffices to justify arrest.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- excise offence
- vehicle ownership
- criminal antecedent
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18904 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2025 Thana- Bahera District- Gaya
======================================================
Ramesh Anup Yadav Son of Anup Yadav Resident of Village- Patiyouna, P.S.-
Barachatti, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Paras Nath, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 26-03-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 29.625 litres of liquor from a
motorcycle.
4. 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18904 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
2/3
and, thus, would create evidence against himself and, hence,
would get implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was
completely unaware that his friend would misuse the vehicle in
the manner as alleged who also fled 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, 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.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)
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 Bahera P.S. Case No. 134 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. 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 more than 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18904 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
3/3
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner has antecedent of only one case in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.