Patna High Court
Harendra 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 Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
Harendra Yadav, the owner of a motorcycle from which 6 litres of liquor were recovered, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with offences under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Excise Act. He argued that he had a clean antecedent, was not present at the spot of seizure, and had no knowledge of his friend's alleged misuse of the vehicle. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500 with two sureties, subject to verification of his antecedent and compliance with Section 438(2) CrPC. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC for offences under the Excise Act when the accused is not in actual possession of the contraband.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence makes the owner liable for anticipatory bail.
- What conditions must be imposed for granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 32(3)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26582 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-510 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Harendra Yadav S/o Jagdish Rai Resident of Village- Bhagwanpur, P.S.-
Parsauni, Dist.- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bishweshwar Ram
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 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) and 32(3) 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 06 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
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
motorcycle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would
use his own vehicle for committing a crime and thus, would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26582 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
create evidence against himself and hence, would get
implicated. It is further submitted that petitioner was completely
unaware that his friend would misuse the vehicle in the manner
as alleged who also fled from 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
Sitamarhi Madhyanished P. S. Case No.510 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
would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26582 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
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…