Patna High Court
Ranjay Yadav @ Ranjan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to bail bonds and verification of their antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Ranjay Yadav and Ghamandi Yadav, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case alleging offences under Sections 30(a), (c) and (d) of the Excise Act for the alleged recovery of liquor and jawa mahua near the Sone river. They argued that they have no prior criminal record, were not caught in possession, and were implicated solely on the basis of a watchman's statement, which they claim is false. The court examined the lack of direct possession, the clean antecedent of the petitioners, and the possibility of wrongful implication. It directed that the petitioners be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500 each with two sureties, subject to verification of their antecedents by the trial court. The order also stipulated that if any criminal antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed. The application was allowed, granting anticipatory bail subject to the stated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC to the petitioners accused of offences under the Excise Act.
- Whether the absence of possession and the petitioners' clean antecedent justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the FIR based on the watchman's statement is sufficient ground to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 30(c), 30(d)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438
- Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- false implication
- police investigation
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24798 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-477 Year-2025 Thana- Arwal District- Arwal
======================================================
1. Ranjay Yadav @ Ranjan Kumar son of Kamlesh Yadav R/O Vill.- Bhedriya
english, P.S.- Paliganj, Dist.- Patna
2. Ghamandi Yadav S/O Triveni Yadav R/O Vill.- Bhedriya english, P.S.-
Paliganj, Dist.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Mishra
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 30(a)(c)(d) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the
allegation is of recovery of 122 litres of liquor along with 1200
litres of jawa mahua from a place near bank of Sone river.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and even alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24798 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioner
and is accessible to public at large and they came to be
implicated at the instance of Chaukidar, but then, it is 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 cast an
aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when admittedly
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent. It is next
submitted that it appears that the Chaukidar in order to save the
real culprit falsely implicated the petitioners. 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. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in
the sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court where the case is pending/ successor Court in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24798 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
3/3
connection with Arwal P. S. Case No.477 of 2025, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
6. The application stands allowed.
7. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioners shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event,
if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of even one case,
then it would be presumed that petitioners for the purposes of
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed their 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 petitioners are persons with clean
antecedent, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…