Patna High Court
Rajkumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions, holding that the absence of conscious possession and prior criminal record outweighs the statutory bar under Section 76(2).
Summary
The petitioner, Rajkumar Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in an excise case (Excise (Bhabhua) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2026) where 9 litres of country‑made liquor were seized from a motorcycle he owned. The prosecution alleged that the vehicle was used to transport the illicit liquor, but the petitioner contended that the bike had been handed over to a villager and that nothing was recovered from his conscious possession, and he has no criminal antecedent. Relying on the Patna High Court Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar (2019 (2) PLJR 1089), which permits anticipatory bail in excise matters despite the bar under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act if no offence is made out, the court examined the facts. Finding no possession and no prior record, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs 10,000, two sureties, and several conditions regarding appearance, cooperation, and non‑interference with witnesses. The order remains conditional and will be revoked if a criminal antecedent is later discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle, absent conscious possession of the seized liquor and lack of criminal antecedent, justifies anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 32(i)(iii), 41(i)(ii), 76(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- seizure of liquor
- possession
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27812 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Rajkumar Yadav Son of Chandradev Yadav Resident of Village- Mudda, P.O.-
Arangi, P.S.- Chandauli, District- Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ayush Tiwari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 29-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ayush Tiwari, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP representing the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Excise (Bhabhua) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2026 for
the offence under sections 30(a), 32(i)(iii) and 41(i)(ii) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act lodged on 09.01.2026 by the
informant, Rinki Kumari.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on secret information, a motorcycle was intercepted and
there is recovery/seizure of 9 liter country made liquor. This led
to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only
because of his ownership of the vehicle, got implicated.
Actually, it was handed over to a local villager for emergency
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27812 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
2/4
purposes, nothing has been recovered from his conscious
possession and he do not have criminal antecedent.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in
2019 (2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an
application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar
Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar
under Section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation
made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made
out.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that he
owns the vehicle.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that nothing has been recovered from his conscious
possession nor he has criminal antecedent, in that background,
this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory
bail with conditions.
8. However, if it is found that the petitioner has
criminal antecedent, the present order shall become infructuous.
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27812 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
3/4
arrest or surrender within a period of four 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 court of Special Judge, Excise-II,
Bhabhua in connection with Excise (Bhabhua) P.S. Case No. 16
of 2026 subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the Police
Station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioner 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;
(iv) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned
police station every fortnight for six months to mark his
attendance and after the end of the period, the certificate shall be
submitted before the Trial Court failing which steps shall be
taken for the cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27812 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
4/4
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;
(vi) the petitioner 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.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.