Patna High Court
Umesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Umesh Yadav, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 for allegedly recovering 150 litres of liquor from two sacks, although the liquor was not found in his immediate possession and the location did not belong to him. He asserted a clean criminal antecedent and argued that the accusation arose from a local informant whose identity was not disclosed. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the petitioner's clean record and lack of direct possession, ordered provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and compliance with conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. The order further directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent; if any prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed, otherwise it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given the alleged offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of possession justify the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
- CrPC Section 438
- CrPC Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42500 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-664 Year-2025 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna
======================================================
Umesh Yadav S/o Rajdev Yadav R/o Vill- Jamanpura, P.S.- Panchrukhiya,
Distt- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Iftekhar Mahmood, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-07-2026 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 the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 150 litres of liquor from two sacks.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner.
It is further submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at
the instance of the local person but then the name of the person
who disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42500 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
2/3
FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution,
when petitioner admittedly is a person with clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let 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 Gaurichak P.S.
Case No. 664 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case,
it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42500 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
3/3
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.