Patna High Court
Umesh Rai @ Umesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Umesh Rai, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Section 317 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. He argued that he was not arrested at the spot, no liquor was recovered from his possession, and he does not own the orchard from which liquor was seized; his only alleged link is ownership of the vehicle used. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after hearing both sides, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., and directed the trial court to verify his criminal antecedent, stipulating that bail would not be confirmed if more than two prior cases are found. The order is provisional pending verification. The decision balances the petitioner’s claim of lack of direct involvement against the seriousness of the offences and his limited criminal history.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under Section 317 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence and his alleged lack of possession of the seized liquor affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s antecedent of two prior cases influences the confirmation of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 317, 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 317
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- vehicle ownership
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24403 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2025 Thana- SURSAND District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Umesh Rai @ Umesh Yadav S/o- Avdhesh Yadav Resident of Village-
Sursand, Ward No. 10, Police Station- Sursand, District- Sitamadhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 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 offences punishable under Section 317 of the
BNS as well as Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases out of which one case is
under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 193.5 litres
of liquor from a motorcycle and an orchard.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted
that petitioner is not the owner of the orchard and came to be
implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24403 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
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, hence, would get
implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was completely
unaware that Sikandra Mukhiya would misuse the vehicle in the
manner as alleged who was also apprehended from the spot.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let 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 Sursand P.S.
Case No. 434 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than two
cases, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24403 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
3/3
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner has antecedent of only two cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…