Patna High Court
Manjeet Kumar @ Majeet Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
Manjeet Kumar Yadav applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for allegedly concealing 90 litres of liquor. The petitioner argued that he was not arrested on the spot, that the liquor was recovered from a place not belonging to him, and that the investigation was based on secret information without proper inquiry. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.5,000 and two sureties of the same amount, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent. The Court warned that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in the pending Excise Act case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Excise Act
- bail bond
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23648 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-221 Year-2025 Thana- YADOPUR District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Manjeet Kumar @ Majeet Kumar Yadav S/o Yogendra Yadav R/o Vilage -
Pathara, P.S. - Jadopur, Dist. - Gopalganj, State - Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr/s.Priya Raj
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Akbar Ali
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-04-2026 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 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act
and allegation is of recovery of 90 litres of liquor concealed
under straw near a community hall.
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 alleged
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioner
and he came to be implicated based on secret information,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23648 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
2/3
which is the easiest way to implicate someone. It is next
submitted that police in majority of cases implicating innocent
persons either at the behest of Chaukidar, local person, secret
information and confessional statement in a mechanical manner
without holding a proper investigation.
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.5,000/- (Rupees Five 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 Yadopur P. S. Case No.221 of 2025, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
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 more than one case, then
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23648 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
3/3
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 has antecedent of one case only, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…