Patna High Court
Anil Yadav @ Anil RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, with confirmation contingent on the outcome of that verification.
Summary
The petitioner, Anil Yadav, sought anticipatory bail after the police alleged his involvement in an offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, involving the recovery of 273.15 litres of liquor from two vehicles. He contended that he was not the owner of the vehicles, the liquor was not found in his possession, and the only link to him was a confession by another accused, Sunil, made in police custody. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner’s three prior excise cases. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bond of Rs.15,000 with two sureties and mandated verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. If more than three prior cases are found, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. in a case of alleged excise offence involving recovery of liquor.
- Whether the absence of the seized liquor from the petitioner’s possession and non‑ownership of the vehicles affect the grant of bail.
- Whether a confession by a co‑accused, without further investigation, suffices to justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
- Section 438 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21213 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2026 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Anil Yadav @ Anil Ray Son of Late Umashankar Ray Resident of Village -
Naraha, P.S. - Rajepur, District - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of three cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 273.15 litres of liquor from a Pick-
UP and Hyundai Car.
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 is not the owner of any of the seized vehicles and
came to be implicated at the instance of the local person but
then the name of the person who disclosed the name of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21213 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR which casts an aspersion
on the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that one
Sunil was apprehended with whom petitioner has no concern or
relation but then Sunil was made to confess the name of the
petitioner in police custody. 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.
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.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 Rajepur P.S. Case No. 15 of 2026,
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21213 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than
three 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 three cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…