Patna High Court
Rakesh Kumar Yadav @ Jhunnu @ Rakesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Yadav, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act, alleging recovery of 208.665 litres of liquor and seizure of a motorcycle from his residence. He contended that the liquor was stored in a joint family house, he did not have conscious possession, and he was not the owner of the motorcycle, asserting that a hostile watchman had implicated him. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC. The court also directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and conditionally confirm the bail if only one prior case is found.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of conscious possession and joint family ownership of the premises affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent influences the decision on anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- liquor seizure
- joint family property
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31801 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2026 Thana- PUNAURA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar Yadav @ Jhunnu @ Rakesh Kumar S/o Brij Nandan Prasad
Yadav @ Brij Nandan Yadav R/o Village- Fatehpur, P.S.- Punaura, District-
Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ritesh Kumar Narain Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Kalyan Shankar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-05-2026 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 under the Excise Act
and allegation is of recovery of 208.665 litres of liquor from
house of the petitioner and a motorcycle was also seized.
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 is not the owner of
the seized motorcycle and even the house in question is a joint
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31801 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026
2/3
family property and thus, it cannot be alleged with certainty that
it was the petitioner, who had kept the liquor in the house or the
liquor kept in the house was within his knowledge and he came
to be implicated at the instance of Chaukidar with whom he is
on an inimical term. It is further submitted that if Chaukidar was
aware of the involvement of the petitioners in the occurrence,
then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the
present F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the case of the
prosecution.
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 Punaura P. S. Case No.79 of 2026, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31801 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026
3/3
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
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…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.