Sunil Yadav @ Surendra YadavversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19262 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-236 Year-2025 Thana- LADANIA District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Sunil Yadav @ Surendra Yadav S/O Biltu Yadav R/O Village- Yogia, P.S-
                 Ladaniya, Distt.- Madhubani.
                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Khurshid Anwar, 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 274, 275

                   and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 as well as Section 30(a) of the Bihar

                   Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of four cases under the Excise Act but

                   then the order impugned does not record with clarity the

                   antecedent of the petitioner, as such, the defect was pointed out

                   by the office.

                                4. In view of the submissions made by the learned

                   counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the defect, as

                   pointed out by the office, is hereby ignored.

                                5. It is reiterated and submitted that petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19262 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
                                            2/3




          antecedent of four cases under the Excise Act and allegation is

          of recovery of 450 litres of liquor from a mango orchad and 225

          litres of liquor from another mango orchard and a motorcycle

          was seized.

                       6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was

          recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged

          recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner.

          It is further submitted that petitioner is not the owner of the

          seized vehicle and came to be implicated at the instance of the

          Chawkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is next

          submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement

          of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform

          the police prior to the institution of the instant FIR which casts

          an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted

          that once an accused is implicated in a case relating to excise the

          police start implicating mechanically either at the instance of the

          Chawkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret

          information without holding a proper investigation of the case.

                       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
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19262 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
                                                       3/3




                     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.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty 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 Ladaniya P.S. Case No. 236 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.

                                  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 more than four

                     cases, 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 has antecedent of only four cases in that event the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T