Patna High Court
Sunil Yadav @ Sumit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and verification of his criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, involving alleged recovery of 340.320 litres of liquor from a Scorpio vehicle. He argued that he was not in possession of the liquor, was not the vehicle's owner, and the case against him relied solely on a confessional statement made by another person, Chandan, while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedents. If more than one prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if only one prior case is found, the bail will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022
- Whether a confessional statement made by a co-accused in police custody can be the sole basis for arrest
- Whether ownership of the seized vehicle and possession of the liquor are essential for granting bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- liquor seizure
- Section 30
- Section 482
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38896 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2026 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria
======================================================
Sunil Yadav @ Sumit Kumar S/O Raghu Yadav Resident Of Village-
Koshkapur, Uttar Ward No. 3, Police Station- Raniganj, District- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-06-2026 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 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 one case and allegation is of
recovery of 340.320 litres of liquor from a Scorpio vehicle. 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 came to be implicated
based on confessional statement of Chandan in police custody
which does not have any evidentiary value.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38896 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
2/2
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.5000/- (Rupees five 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 Raniganj P.S. Case No.123/2026, 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
one case, 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 one
case, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall 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.