Patna High Court
Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting provisional bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
Ajay Yadav applied for anticipatory bail in a case alleging violations of Sections 30(a), 44, 45 of the Excise Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act, involving the alleged recovery of 24 litres of liquor and seizure of an auto. The petitioner argued that he was not arrested at the scene, no contraband was found in his possession, and that a watchman who implicated him had a hostile relationship with him. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offences. The High Court, applying Section 438(2) of the CrPC, granted provisional anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs.15,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent by the trial court. The order stipulated that if more than three prior cases are found, the bail would be revoked; otherwise, it would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite alleged offences under the Excise Act and Arms Act.
- Whether the absence of arrest and lack of possession of the alleged contraband justify granting bail.
- Whether the alleged hostility of the watchman affects the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 44, 45
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Arms Act
- Section 438
- criminal antecedent
- liquor smuggling
- watchman testimony
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43617 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-256 Year-2024 Thana- KATIHAR MUFFASIL District- Katihar
======================================================
Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Kumar Yadav S/O Ghanshyam Yadav
R/O Village- Buddhchak Ramasiya, P.S.- Sahayak, District- Katihar, At
Present R/O Vill.- Kuretha, P.s.- Mansahi, Dist.- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Viveka Nand Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Madan Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 30(a), 45 and 44 of the of the Excise Act and Section
27 of the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of three cases and allegation is of
recovery of 24 litres of liquor from main road at village Maniya
and one auto was seized from the place of occurrence.
4. The 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 alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43617 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
2/3
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioner
and is accessible to public at large and he came to be implicated
at the instance of Chaukidar with whom he is on an inimical
term. It is further submitted that if Chaukidar was aware of the
involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence, then why he did
not inform the police prior to institution of the present F.I.R.,
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is
also submitted that off late, police has started implicating
accused with criminal antecedent in cases relating to liquor for
obvious reason without holding a proper investigation.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 Muffasil P. S. Case No.256 of 2024, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43617 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
3/3
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is
found that petitioner has antecedent of more than three cases,
then it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before
this Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail
order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found
that petitioner has antecedent of three cases only, in that event,
the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.