Patna High Court

Vinod YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 24 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The bail application was rejected because the petitioner misrepresented his antecedent and posed a risk of absconding.

Summary

Vinod Yadav was charged under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 90 litres of liquor from the Sone Diyara area. The petitioner, represented by Ms. Rupa Kumari, applied for regular bail, contending that he was not apprehended at the spot and that the liquor was recovered from a place not belonging to him. The State, through Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, highlighted that the petitioner had eight prior cases, seven under the Excise Act, and had previously obtained provisional anticipatory bail by misrepresenting his antecedent as five cases. The State argued that such misrepresentation indicated lack of clean hands and a risk of absconding if bail were granted. The Court, after considering these submissions, declined to release the petitioner on bail, noting the misrepresentation and potential flight risk. The Court ordered that the petitioner could renew his bail prayer after the charge is framed.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to a petitioner who misrepresented his criminal antecedent in an earlier anticipatory bail application
Whether the risk of absconding justifies denial of bail under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Excise Act

Subjects

bail
anticipatory bail
misrepresentation
excise law
criminal antecedent
flight risk

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26031 of 2026

                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-421 Year-2025 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad
                 ======================================================
                 Vinod Yadav S/O Ramjit Yadav R/O Village- Mahadewa, P.S- Obra, District-
                 Aurangabad, Bihar.


                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar


                                                                              ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Ms. Rupa Kumari
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                                   ORAL ORDER


2   24-04-2026                   1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar

                   Excise Act.

                                 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of eight cases out of which seven cases

                   are under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 90

                   liters of liquor from Sone Diyara area.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26031 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
                                            2/3




                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing

          was recovered from his conscious possession and even alleged

          recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner

          and he came to be implicated at the instance of local person and

          is in custody since 18.02.2026.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan

          Prasad, opposes the bail application of the petitioner and

          submits that petitioner had earlier moved this Court seeking

          anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7181 of

          2026 and the petitioner was granted the privilege of provisional

          anticipatory bail by an order dated 19.02.2026, with a direction

          to the learned Trial Court to verify his criminal antecedent, but

          then it is submitted that it appears that petitioner in Criminal

          Miscellaneous No. 7181 of 2026 has disclosed that he had

          antecedent of five cases when he had antecedent of eight cases,

          as such had not approached the Court while seeking anticipatory

          bail with clean hands, it is thus submitted that if privilege of bail

          is granted, the petitioner may abscond.

                       6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to release the

          petitioner on bail.
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26031 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                                   7. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands

                      rejected.

                                   8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to

                      renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.



                                                              (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…