Patna High Court
Baijnath Yadav @ Baidyanath YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail with conditions, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents, confirming bail if only two prior cases are found.
Summary
Petitioner Baijnath Yadav sought anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging that he was implicated solely on the basis of confessional statements made by co‑accused in police custody and that no liquor or the vehicle was found in his possession. He argued that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, rendering the prosecution's case weak. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. If more than two prior cases are found, the bail will not be confirmed; if exactly two, the bail will be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the alleged offence is based solely on confessional statements of co‑accused.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022, eliminates the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents affect the confirmation of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- confessional statements
- criminal antecedents
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32379 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2026 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani
======================================================
Baijnath Yadav @ Baidyanath Yadav Son of Kamaldev Yadav Resident of
Village- Bandar Jhuli, (wrongly mention in FIR Belhibodar), Lakshmipur,
P.S.- Laukaha, District- Madhubani, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Pushpa Sinha.1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases, out of which, one case is
under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 576 litres
of liquor from a car. It is next submitted 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 vehicle
and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of
Deepak and Dhirendra in police custody which does not have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32379 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that after amendment
in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed
possession and presumed offender has been done away with.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten 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 Phulparas P.S. Case No.61/2026, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than
two cases, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner
had concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if
on verification it is found that petitioner has antecedent of two
cases, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32379 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.