Patna High Court
Akhilesh Kumar Yadav @ Akhilesh yadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting provisional bail with conditions.
Summary
Akhilesh Kumar Yadav applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 16.5 litres of liquor from a joint family house. The petitioner argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not arrested at the scene, and that no liquor was found in his conscious possession; moreover, the FIR does not name the informer, and the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act has abolished the concept of deemed possession. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering these submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties, subject to Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., and ordered verification of his antecedent before confirming the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when alleged possession of liquor under Section 30(a) Excise Act is not proven and the FIR lacks the informer's name.
- Whether the removal of the concept of deemed possession by the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- bail bond
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22442 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2025 Thana- NADI District- Supaul
======================================================
Akhilesh Kumar Yadav @ Akhilesh yadav Son of Late Jageshwar yadav
Resident of Village - Belhi Ward no. 03, Ps- Supaul Nadi Thana (Riverine ps
at Mauja Barhara), Dist- supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amarnath Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 16.5 litres of liquor from house of Anil Yadav.
4. The 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 house in
question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged
with certainty that it was the petitioner, who had kept the liquor
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22442 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/3
in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his
knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the
concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been
done away with and he came to be implicated at the instance of
local person, but the name of the person, who disclosed the
name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the F.I.R., which casts
an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner has
not been implicated based on secret information.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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
Supaul Nadi P. S. Case No.58 of 2025 (Riverine P.S. at Mauja
Barhara P.S.), subject to the conditions laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22442 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/3
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is
found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, then it
would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining
anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before this Court,
in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall
not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…