Patna High Court
Ravindra YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that, given the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of direct possession, provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to verification of antecedent and compliance with conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravindra Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act concerning the alleged recovery of 85.5 litres of liquor from a truck. He argued that he had no direct possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the seized vehicle, and was implicated solely on a confessional statement made by Sunny Kumar while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The petitioner also highlighted his clean criminal antecedent. The State opposed the bail, but the Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and compliance with conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order further directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent and confirm the bail if no prior case is found, otherwise to refuse confirmation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the confessional statement of Sunny Kumar in police custody can form a basis for arrest.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent justifies the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- Section 30(a) Bihar Excise Act
- Section 482(2) BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37949 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2026 Thana- GRIYAK District- Nalanda
======================================================
Ravindra Yadav S/o Late Shivbalak Yadav R/o vill - Shobh Nagar, P.S.-
Giryak, Distt.- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Ranjan
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 29-06-2026 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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 85.5 liters of liquor from a truck.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of
the seized vehicle he came to be implicated based on confessional
statement of Sunny Kumar in police custody which does not have
any evidentiary value, when petitioner admittedly is a person with
clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37949 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
2/2
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
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 Trial Court within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on Provisional
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500/- (Rupees
Five Hundred) 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 Giriyak P.S. Case No.
32 of 2026 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case
then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this
Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a
person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.