Patna High Court
Yuvraj Kumar @ Bunty KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bail bonds, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Yuvraj Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with alleged offences under IPC Sections 272, 273 and 34 and Section 30(a) of the Excise Act, relating to the alleged recovery of 79.02 litres of liquor. The petitioner claimed he was not in possession of the liquor, that the recovery was from a place not owned by him, and that a watchman, who had a personal dispute with the petitioner's brother, falsely implicated him. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC and verification of his criminal antecedent. The order stipulated that if more than one antecedent case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; if only one antecedent case is found, the bail would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious nature of the alleged offences under the IPC and Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of possession and claim of false implication by a watchman merit the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, if more than one case, should affect the confirmation of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 272, 273, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- IPC offences
- Excise Act
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24074 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2023 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Yuvraj Kumar @ Bunty Kumar S/O Pramod Singh @ Suneel Kumar R/O
Village- Madhopur, P.S- Mahua, Distt.- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Eashita Raj
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ahmad 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 272, 273 and 34 of the I.P.C. and 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 79.02 litres of liquor from a
place near a poultry farm.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24074 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
2/3
and he came to be implicated at the instance of Chaukidar with
whom his brother is on an inimical term. It is further submitted
that if Chaukidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioner
in the occurrence, then why he did not inform the police prior to
institution of the present F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the
case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that it appears that
Chaukidar in order to coerce his brother into submission falsely
implicated the petitioner.
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 Mahua P. S. Case No.191 of 2023, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24074 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
3/3
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
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…