Patna High Court
Manjeet Yadav @ Manjit Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting provisional bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
Manjeet Yadav applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act, alleging recovery of liquor from premises not belonging to him. He argued that he was not arrested, no liquor was found in his possession, and the informant who implicated him was not named in the FIR, suggesting a weak investigation. The State opposed the bail, citing his antecedent of seven criminal cases, six of which are under the Excise Act. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.35,000 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedent. The order stipulates that if more than seven prior cases are found, the bail may be revoked; otherwise, it will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted for offences under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act
- Whether the petitioner’s antecedent of seven criminal cases precludes the grant of anticipatory bail
- Whether the lack of arrest, possession, and unnamed informant justify granting anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26134 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2026 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Manjeet Yadav @ Manjit Kumar Yadav Son of Babu Ram Yadav Resident of
Village- Paithan Patti, P.S.- Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shambhu Prasad Yadav
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Humayou Ahmad Khan
======================================================
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
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of seven cases out of which six
cases are under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of
09 litres of liquor from poultry farm of Mithun Mahto and 567
litres of liquor from a bamboo orchard of Bullet Yadav.
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 even alleged
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26134 of 2026(4) dt.02-07-2026
2/3
and petitioner has no concern or relation with Mithun and Bullet
and he came to be implicated at the instance of local person, but
the name of the person, who disclosed the name of the petitioner
is not disclosed in the F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the
case of the prosecution. 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. 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.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) 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 Manjhagarh P. S. Case No.18 of 2026, subject
to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26134 of 2026(4) dt.02-07-2026
3/3
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 more than seven cases,
then it 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 has antecedent of seven cases only, 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.