Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Hriday YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Hriday Yadav, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case alleging possession of 218.175 litres of illicit liquor under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act. He claimed that only 1.875 litres of foreign liquor was found on his motorcycle, which he had parked while fetching groceries, and asserted he had no knowledge of the liquor's presence. The prosecution opposed the bail, but the court noted the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedent and the absence of any recovery from his constructive possession. Relying on Section 482(2) of the BNSS, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 and several conditions, including regular court appearances and non‑interference with witnesses. The order stipulated that bail would be effective for six weeks from the date of the order.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case of alleged possession of illicit liquor under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act.
  • Whether the petitioner can be said to be in constructive possession of the seized liquor.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • illicit liquor
  • constructive possession
  • Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act
  • Section 482(2) BNSS
  • criminal antecedent
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27471 of 2026
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2026 Thana- Bahera District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Hriday Yadav, Son of Kesho Yadav, R/o Pokhariya, P.S.- Barachatti, Gaya

                                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   13-05-2026                    Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for

                   the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Bahera P.S. Case No. 22 of 2026 for the offence

                   punishable under sections 30 (a) of the Bihar Excise and

                   Prohibition Act, lodged on 26.01.2026 by the informant.

                                3. As per the prosecution case, 218.175 litres of illicit

                   liquor has been recovered.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   altogether 134.675 litres of illicit foreign liquors and 83.75 litres

                   of beer have been recovered from five different motor-cycles.

                   The petitioner is connected with the motor-cycle i.e. Hero

                   Splendour-I Smart bearing Registration No. BR-02AA-1280

                   from where 1.875 litres foreign liquor is said to have been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27471 of 2026(4) dt.13-05-2026
                                            2/3




          recovered from the motor-cycle and it is the case of the

          petitioner that the petitioner has parked his motor-cycle on road

          side to fetch groceries during which the incident is said to have

          taken place and the petitioner is not at all aware of the fact as to

          how the said liquor was there. Learned counsel for the petitioner

          submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and no

          recovery has been made from the constructive possession of the

          petitioner.

                        5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory

          bail.

                        6. Considering the fact that the incident is said to

          have taken place while the petitioner has parked his motorcycle

          on the side of the road and has gone to fetch groceries, he has

          got no criminal antecedent and no recovery has been made from

          the constructive possession of the petitioner, this Court is

          inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.

                        7. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on

          bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six

          weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of

          Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount

          each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Excise,

          Court No.- 5, Gaya in connection with aforesaid PS Case,
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27471 of 2026(4) dt.13-05-2026
                                                       3/3




                     subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of

                     the BNSS as well as the following conditions:-

                                                        (i) one of the bailors should be the
                                             family member/relative of the petitioner(s)
                                             who shall provide official document to show
                                             his/her bona fide;
                                                        (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear
                                             on each and every date before the Trial
                                             Court and failure to do so for two
                                             consecutive dates without plausible reason
                                             will entail cancellation of his bail bond by
                                             the Trial Court itself;
                                                        (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no
                                             way try to induce or promise or threat the
                                             witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
                                             failing which the State shall be at liberty to
                                             take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
                                                        (iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist
                                             from committing any criminal offence again,
                                             failing which the State shall be at liberty to
                                             take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.



                                                   (Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez/Suryadev

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.