Patna High Court
Jitendra Yadav @ Jitendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act after police seized 115 litres of country-made wine from an open area near a Panchayat Bhawan. He claimed the seizure was unrelated to his possession and that he was falsely implicated due to his prior criminal record. The prosecution relied on secret information leading to the raid. The court, relying on the precedent set in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, held that anticipatory bail can be granted even if Section 76(2) of the Act imposes a bar, provided the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence. Considering the facts and the precedent, the court granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions, including surety bonds, regular appearances before police and courts, and prohibitions against tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted despite the bar under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act.
- Whether the facts alleged in the FIR constitute an offence under Section 30(a) of the Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement warrants denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- prohibition act
- excise law
- Section 30
- Section 76
- bail conditions
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35005 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2026 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Jitendra Yadav @ Jitendra Kumar son of Yamuna Yadav Resident of Village
-Begampur Arrah Police Station -Arrah Town, Dist- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Shaheen Begum, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 20-05-2026 1. Heard the parties through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Arrah Town P.S. Case No. 163 of 2026 instituted under
Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment
Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, the police, on secret
information, raided the place near the Panchayat Bhawan and
there is recovery/seizure of 115 liters of country-made wine.
This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
has been falsely implicated only because of his criminal
antecedent. The recovery is admittedly from an open place near
the Panchayat Bhawan.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35005 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
2/4
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in
2019(2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an application
for anticipatory bail in a case arising our of Bihar Excise and
Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar under Section
76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation made in the FIR,
no offence under the said provision is made out.
6. Learned APP, Ms. Shaheen Begum opposes the
prayer submitting that he he has criminal antecedent.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that the recovery/seizure is from the orchard and not from
his conscious possession in that background this Court is
inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event
of his arrest or surrender before the concerned court within a
period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each in connection with Arrah Town P.S. Case
No. 163 of 2026 to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special
Excise Court No. 1, Bhojpur, Arrah subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35005 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
3/4
conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/Voter ID/Pan Card
etc.) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the police
station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail
bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned
police station every day for one month and later every fortnight
for next six months to mark his attendance and at the end of the
period a certificate be submitted before the Trial Court failing
which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation
of bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35005 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
4/4
(vi) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Nirmal/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.