Patna High Court
Manju Yadav @ Manju KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court ordered provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to bond, sureties and verification of criminal antecedents, with confirmation contingent on the outcome of that verification.
Summary
The petitioners—Manju Yadav, Arun Yadav and Bhim Kumar—sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 15 litres of liquor from a public area. They argued that nothing was seized from their possession, the alleged site was public, and they were implicated by a watchman (Chowkidar) with whom they have an inimical relationship, questioning the credibility of the prosecution's case. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, directing the trial court to verify the petitioners' criminal antecedents. The order stipulates that if petitioners 1 and 2 are found to have any prior case, or petitioner 3 has more than one prior case, the bail may be cancelled; otherwise, the provisional bail will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the alleged involvement of a watchman and the public nature of the alleged liquor recovery affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioners' criminal antecedents, if any, should influence the confirmation of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- Section 30
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
- public place
- watchman testimony
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25730 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2026 Thana- SIKARHATTA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Manju Yadav @ Manju Kumar S/O Mahendra Singh R/O Village- Sikarhatta
Bharosi, P.S- Sikarhatta, Distt.- Bhojpur.
2. Arun Yadav @ Arun Kumar @ Arun Jado S/O Dharmendra Singh R/O
Village- Sikarhatta Bharosi, P.S- Sikarhatta, Distt.- Bhojpur.
3. Bhim Kumar @ Om Prakash Singh S/O Kameshwar Singh R/O Village-
Sikarhatta Bharosi, P.S- Sikarhatta, Distt.- Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prabhat Kumar Singh, Adv
Ms. Priya, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Binod Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are persons with clean antecedent and
petitioner no. 3 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act
and allegation is of recovery of 15 litres of liquor from Bharosi
Tola near Govardhan Hill.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25730 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the
petitioners and is accessible to public at large and they came to
be implicated at the instance of Chowkidar with whom they are
on an inimical term. It is next submitted that if Chowkidar was
aware about the involvement of the petitioners in the
occurrence, then why he did not inform the police prior to
institution of the instant FIR, which casts an aspersion on the
case of the prosecution.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)
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 connection with Sikarhatta P.S. Case No. 18 of 2026,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section Section
482(2) of the BNSS.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25730 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the
event if it is found that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have antecedent of
even one case and petitioner no. 3 has antecedent of more than
one case then it would be presumed that petitioners, for the
purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed their
antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory
bail order shall not be confirmed with respect to that petitioner
who had concealed his criminal antecedent before this Court, but
after verification if it is found that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are
persons with clean antecedent and petitioner no. 3 has
antecedent of one case in that event the provisional anticipatory
bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…