Patna High Court
Guddu @ Guddi @ Gaddi @ Guddu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail was granted subject to bail bond, sureties, and verification of criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Guddu Yadav, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 for allegedly recovering 50 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He argued that he was not in possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicle, and was implicated solely on secret information without proper investigation. The State opposed the bail. 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 would not be confirmed; if only one prior case is found, the bail would be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of possession and ownership precludes arrest
- Whether the trial court should verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents before confirming bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent verification
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39535 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-535 Year-2021 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Guddu @ Guddi @ Gaddi @ Guddu Yadav S/O Jawahar Yadav @ Jawahir
Yadav R/o - Moti Tola, Motitola, P.S - Ara Town, District - Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Diwakar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-06-2026 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, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of
recovery of 50 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. 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 he came to be implicated
based on secret information which is the easiest way to
implicate someone without holding a proper investigation.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39535 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
2/2
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 Ara Nawada P.S. Case No.535/2021, 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.