Patna High Court
Shashi Ranjan YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court provisionally granted anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Shashi Ranjan Yadav, was implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 30(d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, for alleged recovery of 50 litres of liquor and seizure of a motorcycle near the Dumri River. He contended that he had no prior criminal record, was not in possession of the seized items, and that the vehicle belonged to another accused whose confessional statement should not be relied upon. The State opposed his application for anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500, two sureties of the same amount, and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent by the trial court. The order is conditional: if the trial court finds any prior case, the bail will not be confirmed; if the petitioner is found to have a clean antecedent, the bail will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. in the present facts.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused can be used to establish possession under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment removing the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender on the bail application.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- possession
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26737 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-190 Year-2026 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Shashi Ranjan Yadav S/o- Awadh Yadav R/v- Dumri W. No-2, PS -
Majhauliya Dist- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 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 Sections 30(a) and
30(d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act,
2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 50 litres of liquor and a motorcycle was seized from
the bank of a Dumri River.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted
that petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to
be implicated based on the confessional statement of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26737 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
apprehended accused, namely, Gulshan Kumar in police custody
which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law. It
is next submitted that after amendment in the Excise Act in the
year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed
offender has been done away with.
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 appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let the petitioner,
above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender 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 Majhaulia P.S.
Case No. 190 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case,
it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26737 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…