Patna High Court
Gautam Yadav @ Gautam KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail as the case is prima facie weak and no incriminating article was recovered from him.
Summary
The petitioner, Gautam Yadav, sought pre‑arrest bail in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged possession of 17 litres of country‑made liquor seized during a police raid. The FIR alleged that the liquor was linked to the petitioner based solely on unnamed local informants, with no material recovered from his conscious possession. The petitioner contended he was innocent and had no involvement in the liquor trade. The State opposed the bail, but the court observed that the recovery was from the roadside, no incriminating article was found on the petitioner, and the implication rested on mere suspicion. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for pre‑arrest bail and ordered his release upon furnishing a bail bond with sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482 of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the allegations based on unnamed informants and lack of seized material from the petitioner justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30
- seizure of liquor
- suspicion
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 438
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29493 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2025 Thana- KIUL District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Gautam Yadav @ Gautam Kumar S/o Late Kharo Yadav R/o Vill. - Lakho
Chak, P.S. - Kiul, Dist. - Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Sanju Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 Heard Ms. Sanju Singh, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar,
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Kiul P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act as amended up-to-date.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, on secret
information, the police conducted a raid near the house of one
Sale Yadav, where two persons fled away on seeing the police,
leaving behind a bag and sack from which a total of about 17
litres of country-made liquor was recovered and seized, and the
same was allegedly linked to the co-accused persons including
the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29493 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in the case. He has no concern either with the
seized liquor or trade of liquor in any manner. The alleged
recovery of 17 litres of country-made Mahua liquor was made
from the roadside and not from the conscious possession of the
petitioner. The implication of the petitioner is based merely on
suspicion and on alleged disclosure by unnamed local persons.
No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner. On these grounds, petitioner seeks
to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions and on perusal
of the record, it appears that the alleged recovery of 17 litres of
country-made Mahua liquor has been made from the roadside
and not from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The
implication of the petitioner is based on alleged disclosure of
unnamed local persons. No incriminating article has been
recovered from the petitioner. I am of the opinion that the
petitioner has, prima facie, made out a case to be released on
pre-arrest bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29493 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
7. The petitioner, above named, is directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks
from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned District Court where the case is
pending /successor court in connection with Kiul P.S. Case No.
69 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482 of the BNSS.
8. The District Court is directed to verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that
the petitioner is involved in some other cases as what has
been stated in Para-3 of the bail petition, this order will
automatically lose its force.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…