Patna High Court
Suraj yadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted because the seizure was not from the petitioners' conscious possession and there was non‑compliance with statutory seizure provisions, outweighing the effect of their criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Mithilesh Yadav and Suraj Yadav, were arrested on 8 April 2026 in connection with an excise case involving the seizure of 493.680 liters of liquor from a truck, alleged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018. They contended that the liquor was not in their conscious possession and that the seizure was conducted by police officers, thereby violating Sections 103 and 105 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act (BNSS). The prosecution opposed bail, citing the petitioners' prior criminal records. The court examined the lack of direct possession and the procedural lapses in the seizure, concluding that these factors outweighed the antecedent convictions. Consequently, the court ordered bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedents. The bail order was directed to be implemented without delay pending verification.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite alleged violations of Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS.
- Whether the absence of conscious possession of the seized liquor justifies bail.
- Whether the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act (BNSS) — s. 103, 105
Subjects
- bail
- excise law
- liquor seizure
- conscious possession
- Section 103
- Section 105
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 29785 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Rohtas
======================================================
Mithilesh Yadav @ Mithlesh Yadav
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 30566 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Rohtas
======================================================
Suraj yadav
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 29785 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 30566 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 05-05-2026 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioners seeks bail who are in custody since
08.04.2026 in connection with Sasaram Excise P.S. Case No.
183 of 2026, F.I.R. dated 07.04.2026 for the offences punishable
under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 29785 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026
2/3
Act, 2018.
3. Recovery is of 493.680 liters of liquor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in
the present case. He further submits that it appears from the
F.I.R. as well as seizure list that nothing has been recovered
from the conscious possession of the petitioners rather the
recovery has been made from truck in question. He further
submits that seizure list witnesses are police personnel so there
is non-compliance of Section 103 and 105 of BNSS and the
petitioners are in custody since 08.04.2026.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and
submits that both the petitioners have one criminal antecedent.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the fact that recovery has been made from truck in question
and there is non-compliance of Section 103 and 105 of BNSS,
let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court No.-1, Rohtas, Sasaram
in connection with Sasaram Excise P.S. Case No. 183 of 2026,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 29785 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026
3/3
subject to the following conditions:-
i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.