Patna High Court
Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting provisional bail subject to bond, sureties and verification of antecedent.
Summary
Mukesh Yadav applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for allegedly recovering 8.56 litres of liquor from land jointly owned with Devendra Yadav. The petitioner argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not arrested, and that the liquor was not in his conscious possession as the land is publicly accessible. He also contended that the complaint was motivated by an inimical watchman and that the watchman’s failure to inform police earlier casts doubt on the prosecution’s case. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent before confirming the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC for an offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean criminal antecedent and lack of possession of the alleged liquor justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the allegations of the watchman affect the merit of the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- liquor seizure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24765 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2026 Thana- MADHEPUR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Kumar Yadav Son of Bhumi Yadav @
Bhuvneshwar Yadav Resident of Village - Vishanpur, Police Station -
Madhepur, District - Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md Soban Asghar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arun Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 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 8.56 litres of liquor from joint land of Mukesh
Yadav and Devendra 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 the land is outside
the house and and is accessible to public at large. It is next
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24765 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
submitted that no prudent person would use his own land for
committing a crime and thus, would create evidence against
himself and hence, would get implicated. It is next submitted
that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of
Chaukidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is further
submitted that if Chaukidar was aware of the involvement of the
petitioners 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, when admittedly
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.
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
Madhepur P. S. Case No.31 of 2026, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24765 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
3/3
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 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…