Patna High Court
Vijay Prasad 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.
Summary
The petitioner, Vijay Prasad Yadav, applied for anticipatory bail anticipating arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 83.5 litres of liquor from his motorcycle. He argued that he was not in possession of the liquor, was unaware of the misuse of his vehicle by another person, and that ownership of the vehicle alone should not implicate him. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, applying Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish bail bonds of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedent. If more than one prior case is found, the bail may be withdrawn; if only one antecedent exists, the bail will be confirmed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC in a case arising under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether mere ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence justifies denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
- vehicle ownership
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28909 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2025 Thana- TERHAGACHH District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Vijay Prasad Yadav S/o Jagdev Yadav R/o- Shishagachhi, Dhaveli Ward no.2,
P.S.- Tedhagaach, Distt-Kishanganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ram Jiban Pd Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Indiwar Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-04-2026 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
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of
recovery of 83.5 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
vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use
his own vehicle for committing a crime and thus, would create
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28909 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
2/3
evidence against himself and hence, would get implicated. It is
further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that
Chhotu Yadav would misuse the vehicle in the manner as
alleged as he was also apprehended at 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.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) 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 Tedhagaach P. S. Case No.138 of 2025, 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 more than one case, then
it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28909 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
3/3
obtaining 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 has antecedent of one case only, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…