Patna High Court
Gajendra Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted conditionally, with verification of the petitioner’s antecedents to determine final confirmation.
Summary
The petitioner, Gajendra Kumar Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 317(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances (BNS) Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, alleging that 116.55 litres of liquor were recovered from a vehicle he did not own. He argued that he had a clean antecedent, the liquor was not found in his possession at the time of arrest, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement of another accused, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warranted detention. Justice Satyavrat Verma granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to a bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and a condition that the trial court verify the petitioner’s antecedents within six weeks. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would be presumed concealed and not confirmed; otherwise, the bail would be confirmed immediately.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. in the present case?
- Whether the confessional statement of an accused in police custody can form the sole basis for denying anticipatory bail?
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of ownership of the seized vehicle and absence of liquor in his possession justify granting anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (BNS) Act — s. 317(5), 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 317
- Prohibition and Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- confessional statement
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40624 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2025 Thana- DHANAHA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Gajendra Kumar Yadav S/o- Vakil Ray R/v- Mathiya Bariyarpur Police
Station- Piprakothi District-East champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-06-2026 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 317(5) of the
BNS and Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 116.55 litres of liquor from a Maruti Suzuki car. 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 confessional statement of apprehended accused in police
custody which does not have any evidentiary value.
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.40624 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026
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.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 Dhanaha
P.S. Case No.42 of 2025, 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 even 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 is a person with clean antecedent, 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.