Patna High Court
Santosh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail with bond and sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents, confirming bail only if he has exactly two prior cases.
Summary
Santosh Yadav, owner of a pickup vehicle, was implicated in the recovery of 66.240 litres of liquor under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. He was not arrested at the spot and no liquor was found in his possession; the allegation rests on his ownership of the vehicle used by another person. Yadav, who has two prior excise cases, sought anticipatory bail, arguing he was unaware of the misuse of his vehicle. The State opposed the bail. The High Court granted provisional anticipatory bail on condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify his criminal antecedents, confirming bail only if he has exactly two prior cases, otherwise revoking it.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of alleged liquor seizure and vehicle ownership
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) are appropriate
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 32(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- liquor seizure
- vehicle ownership
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22050 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-850 Year-2024 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Siwan
======================================================
Santosh Yadav S/o Devendra Yadav R/o Village- Jagdishpur, P.S- Biraul, Dist-
Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Girish Chandra Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 07-04-2026 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 Sections 30(a) and
32(3) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 66.240 litres of liquor from a pick up
vehicle. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested
from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious
possession and he 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 and thus would create evidence against himself and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22050 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
2/3
hence would get implicated. It is also submitted that the
petitioner was completely unaware that Pankaj would misuse his
vehicle in the manner as alleged who was also apprehended
from the spot.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, 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.10,000/- (Rupees ten 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 Excise Siwan P.S. Case No.850/2024, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than
two cases, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner
had concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22050 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
3/3
on verification it is found that petitioner has antecedent of two
cases, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall
be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.