Patna High Court
Ballad YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and verification of his antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Ballad Yadav, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 for allegedly transporting 60.450 litres of liquor in a vehicle he owned. He argued that he had no prior criminal record, the liquor was not found in his immediate possession, and he was unaware that his driver, Jhappu, misused the vehicle. The State opposed the bail, contending that ownership of the vehicle linked the petitioner to the offence. Justice Satyavrat Verma granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to a modest bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s antecedents by the trial court. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would be revoked, whereas a clean record would lead to confirmation of the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
- Whether mere ownership of the vehicle used for alleged contravention suffices to justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. are appropriate for granting provisional anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44347 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2025 Thana- EXCISE JAGDISHPUR District-
Bhojpur
======================================================
Ballad Yadav S/o Raj Ram Yadav R/o Village- Arail P.s. - Chainpur, Dist. -
Kaimur at Bhabhua.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramesh Chandra
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 07-07-2026 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
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 60.450 litres of liquor from an auto. It is next
submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such
nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and he
came to be implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the
seized vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would
use his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44347 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
2/3
would create evidence against himself and hence would get
implicated. It is also submitted that the petitioner was
completely unaware that Jhappu would misuse his vehicle in the
manner as alleged, who was also apprehended from the spot
along with Suraj.
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
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 Excise Jagdishpur P.S. Case No.202/2025,
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44347 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
3/3
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.