Patna High Court
Kari yadav @ Amarjit YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, surrender within six weeks, and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Kari Yadav, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 74.460 litres of liquor from an orchard not owned by him. He argued that he was not arrested at the spot, no liquor was found in his possession, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement of an apprehended accused, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The petitioner also contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, making the charge untenable. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner’s antecedent of ten prior cases, six of which were under the Excise Act. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.50,000 bond, two sureties, and a six‑week surrender, while directing verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. The order stipulated that if more than ten prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act where the alleged liquor was not in the petitioner’s possession.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act, which removed the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether a confessional statement of an apprehended accused, without corroborative evidence, can justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- What conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. must be imposed for granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Section 30
- Section 438
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33228 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2026 Thana- KEWATI District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Kari yadav @ Amarjit Yadav Son of Ram Prakash yadav Resident of Village-
Kadam Toli Police Station -Keoti District -Darbhanaga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nilendu Kumar Choudhary
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Madan Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 14-05-2026 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 ten cases out of which six cases
are under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 74.460
litres of liquor from an orchard situated near Gas Agency.
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 even alleged
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioner
and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33228 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
2/3
apprehended accused in police custody which does not have any
evidentiary value. It is also submitted that after Amendment in
the Excise Act, 2018, the concept of deemed possession and
presumed offender has been done away with. It is next
submitted that police in majority of cases implicating innocent
persons either at the behest of Chaukidar, local person, secret
information and confessional statement in a mechanical manner
without holding a proper investigation.
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.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 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 Keoti P. S. Case No.29 of 2026, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33228 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
3/3
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 ten cases, 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 ten cases 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.