Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Raghunandan YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was granted as no offence was made out against the petitioner and the Section 76(2) bar was not applicable, following the Ram Vinay Yadav precedent.

Summary

The petitioner, Raghunandan Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act where 80 litres of codeine syrup were seized and another individual, Salman Khurshid, was arrested. Yadav contended that he was implicated merely because he owned the vehicle used, which he had lent to Md. Aslam, and argued that no offence was made out against him. Relying on the Patna High Court Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar (2019), he argued that anticipatory bail can be granted despite the bar in Section 76(2) if the allegations do not constitute an offence. The State opposed, citing Yadav’s two prior criminal antecedents. The court, considering the precedent and the absence of any seizure from Yadav’s conscious possession, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Issues considered

  • Can anticipatory bail be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act despite the bar under Section 76(2) when no offence is made out?
  • Does ownership of a vehicle used in the alleged offence render the owner liable for anticipatory bail denial?
  • Do prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act
  • codeine syrup seizure
  • Section 30
  • Section 438
  • criminal antecedent
  • vehicle ownership

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43895 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2026 Thana- DIDARGANJ District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Raghunandan Yadav S/o Rama Narayan Yadav @ Ramnarayan Yadav R/o
                 Village- Behrari, Ward No.01, P.S- Shankarpur, Dist- Madhepura.

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Pawan Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Braj Kishore Pd., App
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-07-2026                  Heard the parties.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Didarganj P.S. Case No. 39 of 2026                      instituted under

                   Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment

                   Act     lodged on 14.02.2026 by the informant, Manish Kumar.

                                3. As per the prosecution story, the Police intercepted

                   a vehicle and there is recovery/seizure of 80 liters of codeine

                   syrup. One Salman Khurshid was arrested which followed the

                   FIR.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only

                   because he owns the car, got implicated. Actually, it was given

                   to Md. Aslam for taking his mother to Patna for treatment.

                                5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on

                   the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43895 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
                                            2/4




          the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in

          2019 (2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an

          application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar

          Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar

          under Section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation

          made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made

          out.

                       6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that

          the he has two criminal antecedent.

                       7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties

          and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as

          also that nothing has been recovered from his conscious

          possession, Md. Salman Khurshid has been arrested alongwith

          the syrup, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend

          him the privilege of anticipatory bail.

                       8. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event

          of his arrest or surrender before the concerned court within a

          period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing

          bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of

          the like amount each in connection with Didarganj P.S. Case

          No. 39 of 2026 to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge,

          Excise, Patna subject to the conditions as laid down under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43895 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
                                            3/4




          Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other conditions.

                       (i) one of the bailor should be the family

          member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official

          document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/Voter ID/Pan Card

          etc.) to show his/her bona fide;

                       (ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the police

          station as and when required for cooperating in the

          investigation;

                       (iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date

          before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive

          dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his

          bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

                       (iv) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned

          police station every day for one month and later every fortnight

          for next six months to mark his attendance and at the end of the

          period a certificate be submitted before the Trial Court failing

          which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation

          of bail bonds;

                       (v) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or

          promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,

          failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for

          cancellation of the bail bonds;
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43895 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
                                                       4/4




                                  (vi) the petitioner shall desist from committing any

                     criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty

                     to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.



                                                    (Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-Ankita

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.