Patna High Court
Md. Yasin Miya @ Md. YasinversusThe 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, Md. Yasin Miya, was implicated in an excise case for alleged possession of 20 litres of liquor recovered from a motorcycle he owned. He argued that he had no conscious possession, was not arrested at the spot, and had a clean criminal antecedent. The State opposed the anticipatory bail application. The Court considered the petitioner's claim that ownership of the vehicle does not automatically implicate him in the offence and noted the lack of direct evidence of his involvement. Relying on Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and a six‑week surrender condition. The order also directed the trial court to verify the petitioner's antecedent, with confirmation of bail contingent upon a clean record.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of alleged excise offences.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence constitutes sufficient ground to deny bail.
- Whether the petitioner's alleged clean antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 56(b)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- Section 30
- Section 56
- Section 438
- criminal antecedent
- vehicle ownership
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24946 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-459 Year-2018 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP.
District- Gaya
======================================================
Md. Yasin Miya @ Md. Yasin S/o Late Karatu Miya Resident of Village-
Kabin Bar, P.O.- Maigra, P.S.- Imamganj, Dist.- Gaya, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satya Veer
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 02-07-2026 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
Sections 30(a) and 56(b) 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 20 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
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 he came to be
implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized
motorcycle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24946 of 2026(4) dt.02-07-2026
2/3
use his own vehicle for committing a crime and thus, would
create evidence against himself and hence, would get
implicated. It is further submitted that petitioner was completely
unaware that Chandan would misuse the vehicle in the manner
as alleged as he was also apprehended at the spot.
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
Sherghati Excise P. S. Case No.459 of 2018, 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 even one case, then it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24946 of 2026(4) dt.02-07-2026
3/3
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…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.