Patna High Court
Jitu Yadav @ Ravi RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to bond, sureties and verification of criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Jitu Yadav and Pankaj Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under IPC sections 272, 273, 34 and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act concerning alleged recovery of large quantities of liquor from their vehicles. They argued that the first petitioner was unaware of the driver’s alleged misuse of his vehicle and that the second petitioner was implicated solely on a confessional statement made by another person in police custody, which they claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC, directing the trial court to verify the petitioners' criminal antecedents and to confirm or withdraw the bail accordingly. The order emphasized that concealment of antecedent would lead to denial of confirmation of bail. The court thus allowed the petition for anticipatory bail on a provisional basis.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the pending case under IPC and the Bihar Excise Act
- Whether the evidentiary value of the confessional statement of Mitilesh is sufficient to deny bail
- Whether the ownership of the vehicle and alleged lack of conscious possession affect bail eligibility
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 272, 273, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Bihar Excise Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- vehicle ownership
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38913 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2019 Thana- KALUAHI District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Jitu Yadav @ Ravi Raj S/o Mahendra Yadav R/o Vill-Laskariya,P.S-
Jaynagar, Distt-Madhubani
2. Pankaj Yadav @ Pankaj Kumar Yadav S/o Mahendra Yadav R/o Vill-
Laskariya,P.S-Jaynagar, Distt-Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Kumari Pallavi
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Kanhiya Kishor
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 273
and 34 of the IPC and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and petitioner
no. 2 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 360 litres of liquor from an Alto car
and 180 litres of liquor from a Maruti car.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38913 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
2/3
recovered from their conscious possession and petitioner no. 1
came to be implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the
seized Alto vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person
would use his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and
thus would create evidence against himself and hence would get
implicated, it is further submitted that petitioner no. 1 was
completely unaware that his driver would misuse the vehicle in
the manner as alleged. It is next submitted that petitioner no. 2
came to be implicated based on confessional statement of
Mitilesh in police custody which does not have any evidentiary
value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)
each 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 Kaluahi P.S. Case No. 83 of 2019,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38913 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
3/3
the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the
event if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of even
one case and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of more than one
case then it would be presumed that petitioners, for the purposes
of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed their antecedent before
this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not
be confirmed with respect to that petitioner who had concealed his
criminal antecedent before this Court, but after verification if it is
found that petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and
petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of one case in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.