Patna High Court

Saroj Yadav @ Saroj Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 8 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied.

Summary

The petitioner, Saroj Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case (PS Case No. 414 of 2025) alleging violation of Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, for possession of 342 litres of illicit liquor. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was one of three accused named in the FIR, although the liquor was recovered from an open area and not from his possession. The petitioner’s counsel argued his innocence, claiming the charge was based on secret information and that no liquor was found on him, while also noting his pending criminal cases but asserting bail eligibility. The State’s APP opposed bail, emphasizing the petitioner’s three pending excise cases as a factor against granting relief. The High Court, after considering the facts and the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, declined to grant anticipatory bail, directing that if the petitioner surrenders within four weeks, the trial court should decide his bail application on the merits without prejudice.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of alleged involvement in illicit liquor possession and his pending criminal antecedents.

Subjects

anticipatory bail
illicit liquor
excise law
Section 30(a)
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
criminal antecedent
bail application

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21858 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-414 Year-2025 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Saroj Yadav @ Saroj Kumar Yadav Son of Lakshmi Yadav @ Lakshmi
                 Narayan Yadav R/o Village - Inarwa, Ward No.- 05, P.S.- Phulparas, District -
                 Madhubani.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s

                                                       Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Ratnakar Jha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Arun Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

                                                  ORAL ORDER

2   08-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Phulparas P.S. Case No. 414 of 2025 lodged on

                   30.09.2025, for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of

                   the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022,

                   pending in the Court of Special Judge (Excise) Act, Jhanjharpur,

                   Madhubani.

                                3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against

                   three named accused persons including the present petitioner.

                   Total recovery of 342 litres of illicit liquor has been made,

                   which is the subject matter of the present case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21858 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                            2/3




                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel

          submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious

          possession of the petitioner and his name has figured in this case

          on the basis of secret information. Counsel submits that the

          alleged recovery of liquor has been made from different bushes

          which is an open place and the petitioner has no concern with

          the same. Counsel further submits that the criminal antecedent

          of the petitioner is not clean as there are three cases pending

          against him and in all the cases, he is on bail.

                       5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

          bail of the petitioner and submits that criminal antecedent of the

          petitioner is not clean as there are three cases pending against

          him which is registered under Excise Act and this aspect must

          be taken into consideration.

                       6. As such, in the present facts and circumstances, this

          Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly,

          the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

                       7. However, if petitioner surrenders before the

          concerned Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today

          then in that case, the Trial Court is directed to pass order on his

          surrender-cum-bail application on the same day, without being
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21858 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                                         3/3




                       prejudice that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been

                       rejected by this Court and the Trial Court shall pass order on the

                       merit of this case.



                                                                      (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…