Patna High Court
Jai Prakash @ Jai Prakash YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent and compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Jai Prakash Yadav, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act alleging recovery of nine litres of liquor from an orchard not belonging to him. He argued that he had no prior criminal record, the liquor was not found in his possession, and the complaint originated from a watchman who had no reason to involve the police earlier. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his antecedent within six weeks. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed immediately.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of possession of the alleged liquor justify granting anticipatory bail
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- clean antecedent
- high court
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26382 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2026 Thana- KRISHNAGARH District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Jai Prakash @ Jai Prakash Yadav S/o- Jiyodhan Yadav Village- Gundi Jailal
Ke Dera Gundi PS- Krishnagarh District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 9 liters of liquor from an orchard.
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 is accessible to villagers at large and he came to be
implicated at the instance of Chowkidar with whom he is on an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26382 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
inimical term. It is also submitted that if Chowkidar was aware
of the involvement of the petitioner 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 petitioner.
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 Trial Court
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds 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
Krishnagarh P.S. Case No. 44 of 2026 subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
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 would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this
Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26382 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…