Deepak Kumar @ Deepak YadavversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32125 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-398 Year-2026 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Yadav Son of Gyani Rai Resident of Village -
                 Ahiyapur, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District - Muzaffarpur.

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Bhavesh Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mrs. Meena Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   01-07-2026                     Heard Mr. Bhavesh Kumar learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and Mrs. Meena Singh, learned Additional Public

                   Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest connection

                   with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 398 of 2026, F.I.R. dated

                   24.02.2026 registered for the offences punishable under

                   Sections 30(a), 41 of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2022

                   (Amended).

                                3. Recovery is of 857.52 liters of illicit liquor.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the

                   present case. It appears from the F.I.R. that altogether 857.52

                   litres of illicit liquor was recovered from the vehicles in

                   question and the name of the petitioner has been transpired on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32125 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                            2/4




          the basis of disclosure made by apprehended co-accused person,

          namely, Raja Kumar and except the aforesaid, no other cogent

          material has come during investigation to suggest the

          involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence. He

          further submits that similarly situated co-accused person,

          namely, Niraj Kumar has been granted bail by this Court today

          i.e. on 01.07.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 29826 of 2026,

          another co-accused person, namely, Niraj Kumar @ Niraj

          Kumar Ray has been granted bail by this Court today i.e. on

          01.07.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 30323 of 2026. Therefore,

          the recovery cannot be attributed to the petitioner. There is non-

          compliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery

          under Section 100 of Cr. P.C./ Section 103 of BNSS, 2023 No

          case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner

          under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                       5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

          vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

          petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of

          the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the pre-

          arrest bail would not be maintainable. He further submits that

          the petitioner carries five more cases other than the present one

          but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail petition
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32125 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                            3/4




          that the petitioner is on bail in the pending matters.

                       6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full

          Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar

          reported in 2019(2) P.LJ.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid

          down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on

          behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant

          of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of

          counsel for the petitioner.

                       7. Considering the aforesaid facts and the fact that the

          petitioner having clean antecedent and nothing has been

          recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner or the

          house of the petitioner and the petitioner has been made accused

          on the basis of disclosure made by apprehended co-accused

          person as well as similarly situated co-accused persons have

          been granted bail by this Court today, let the petitioner, above

          named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court

          below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of

          the order. 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 learned Exclusive Special Judge,

          Excise Court No. I, Muzaffarpur in connection with Ahiyapur

          PS. Case No. 398 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32125 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
                                                           4/4




                         down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal

                         Procedure/Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 and with other

                         following conditions:-

                                      1. Petitioner 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 his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

                         reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

                                      2. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

                         witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

                         for cancellation of bail.

                                          3. And further condition that the court below shall

                         verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at

                         any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his

                         criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

                         cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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.



Ibrar//-                                                               (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

U          T