Patna High Court
Upendra YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to petitioners 1 and 3 subject to conditions and allowed the withdrawal of petitioner 2's anticipatory bail application.
Summary
The petitioners, three Yadav brothers, applied for anticipatory bail after a police case was registered under Sections 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of liquor from several motorcycles. Petitioners 1 and 3 argued they were not in possession of the seized vehicles, were not the owners, and that the only evidence against them was a confessional statement made in police custody, which they claimed lacked evidentiary value. Petitioners 1 and 3 also contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the anticipatory bail. The Court allowed the withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application of petitioner 2, who had already been arrested, and granted provisional anticipatory bail to petitioners 1 and 3 subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and a six‑week window, pending verification of their criminal antecedents. The order conditions that if more than two prior cases are found, the bail may be cancelled; otherwise it will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners 1 and 3 under Sections 438 CrPC and 482(2) B.N.S.S. in view of the alleged offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application of petitioner 2 is permissible.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- provisional bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- confessional statement
- deemed possession
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27244 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2026 Thana- SINDHUGAR District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Upendra Yadav S/o- GAnga Yadav R/o Village- Kadchua PS- Sindugarh
Dist- Gaya
2. Ramesh Yadav @ Ramesh Kumar Yadav S/o- Chandra Dev Yadav R/o
Village- Kadchua PS- Sindugarh Dist- Gaya
3. Niranjan Yadav S/o- Mohan Yadav R/o Village- Kadchua PS- Sindugarh
Dist- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Priyadarshi Pankaj Raj Anand, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset,
seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application
with respect to petitioner no. 2, namely, Ramesh Yadav @
Ramesh Kumar Yadav who was arrested during pendency of the
same.
2. Permission is accorded.
3. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application with
respect to petitioner no. 2 is dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners no. 1 and
3 and learned A.P.P. for the State.
5. The petitioners no. 1 and 3 apprehend their arrest in
a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27244 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment)
Act, 2022.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners no. 1 and 3
submits that petitioners no. 1 and 3 have antecedent of two cases
under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 215 litres
of liquor from three different motorcycles and one more
motorcycle was seized.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners no. 1 and 3
submits that petitioners no. 1 and 3 were not arrested from the
spot, as such, nothing was recovered from their conscious
possession. It is further submitted that petitioners no. 1 and 3 are
not the owner of the seized vehicles and came to be implicated
based on the confessional statement of Birendra Yadav 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.
8. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners no. 1 and 3.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners no. 1 and 3, let
the petitioners no. 1 and 3, above-named, in the event of their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27244 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be
released on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each 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 Sindhugarh P.S. Case No. 03 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.
10. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners
no. 1 and 3 and if it is found that petitioners no. 1 and 3 have
antecedent of more than two cases, it would be presumed that
petitioners no. 1 and 3 had concealed their antecedent before
this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in that
event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed but if it is found on verification that petitioners no. 1
and 3 have antecedent of only two cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…