Patna High Court
Vijay Kant YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
A person not in actual possession of the contraband and with a clean antecedent is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
Summary
Vijay Kant Yadav applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with a case under the Excise Act alleging possession of 2.880 litres of liquor on his scooty. The petitioner argued that he had no prior criminal record, was not in actual possession of the liquor at the time of arrest, and was merely the owner of the vehicle used by another person. The State opposed the bail, contending the alleged offences under Sections 30(a), 32 and 41(i) of the Excise Act. The Court noted the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of conscious possession, and directed that provisional anticipatory bail be granted subject to bail bonds and verification of antecedents. The order further stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would be revoked; otherwise, it would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in view of the alleged offences under the Excise Act.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged contravention precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 32, 41(i)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- clean antecedent
- vehicle ownership
- liquor seizure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25604 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-451 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
Vijay Kant Yadav Son of Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Yadav Resident of A.G.
Colony, House No. 277, Vikash Colony, P.O. and P.S.- Shastrinagar, District-
Patna (Bihar) 800023, Aadhar No. 758364035199
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Roushan Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Umanath Mishra
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-04-2026 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
Sections 30(a), 32 and 41(i) 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 2.880 litres of liquor from a scooty.
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
scooty. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25604 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
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
Rahul 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
Excise P. S. Case No.451 of 2026, 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.25604 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
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…