Patna High Court
Bipin Yadav @ Vipin Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, finding that the seizure did not establish constructive possession and that the procedural requirements of the BNSS were not satisfied.
Summary
The petitioners, Bipin Yadav and his son Bittu Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act for alleged possession of 5.04 litres of illicit liquor recovered from a location adjacent to their house. They contended that the seizure was not from their constructive possession, that the informant was a hostile chowkidar, and that the seizure violated Section 105 of the Bihar Negotiable Substances Act. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents. The Court, noting the lack of direct possession and the questionable seizure, exercised its power under Section 482(2) of the BNSS to grant anticipatory bail with strict conditions, including surety, appearance before the trial court, and non‑interference with witnesses. The order directed release on bail within six weeks upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the alleged recovery of illicit liquor from a place adjacent to their residence.
- Whether the seizure complied with Section 105 of the Bihar Negotiable Substances Act.
- Whether the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act — s. 30(a)
- Bihar Negotiable Substances Act (BNSS) — s. 105, 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illicit liquor
- constructive possession
- Section 30(a)
- Section 105
- Section 482(2)
- bail conditions
- prior criminal antecedent
- excise law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35094 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2026 Thana- MORO District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Bipin Yadav @ Vipin Kumar Yadav S/O Khushilal Yadav Resident of
Village- Araila, Ward No.6, P.S.- Moro, Dist- Darbhanga.
2. Bittu Yadav S/O Bipin Yadav @ Vipin Kumar Yadav Resident of Village-
Araila, Ward No.6, P.S.- Moro, Dist- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Saurav Anand, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 25-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Moro P.S. Case No. 24 of 2026 for the offence
punishable under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Excise and
Prohibition Act, lodged on 03.03.2026 by the informant.
3. As per the prosecution case, there has been
recovery of 5.04 litres of illicit liquor, allegedly, from the
adjacent place of the house of the petitioners. Accordingly, the
FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
recovery is said to have been made from a place adjacent to the
house of the petitioners and nothing has been recovered from
the constructive possession of the petitioners. The petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35094 of 2026(2) dt.25-05-2026
2/3
have falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of
disclosure made by the local Chowkidar who is said to be on
inimical terms with the petitioners. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner no.1 is the father of petitioner no.2
and it seems entitrely improbable for a father to get his son
indulged in such illegal activities. There has also been a gross
violation of Section 105 of the BNSS while making seizure. It
has fairly been submitted that both the petitioners have got one
criminal antecedent each and they are on bail on those cases.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that
both the petitioners have got antecedents.
6. Considering the fact that the recovery has not been
made from the constructive possession of these petitioners and
the place from where the seizure is said to have been made does
not belong to these petitioners rather it is said to have been
adjacent to the boundary of their house, this Court is inclined to
extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, be released on
bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35094 of 2026(2) dt.25-05-2026
3/3
Judge-II, (Excise Act) Darbhanga in connection with aforesaid
PS Case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the
family member/relative of the petitioner(s)
who shall provide official document to show
his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) 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;
(iii) the petitioner(s) 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;
(iv) the petitioner(s) 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.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.