Patna High Court
Manish Yadav @ Manish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
Manish Yadav sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case under the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of 882 litres of liquor from a truck. He argued that he was not caught in possession, was not the owner of the truck, and the case against him relied solely on confessional statements made by two co‑accused while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedent. If more than one prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if only one prior case is found, the bail will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Bihar Excise Act offences.
- Whether confessional statements of co‑accused made in police custody can form the basis for denying anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a), 32, 36, 41
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- confessional statements
- police custody
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45019 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2026 Thana- KARPURIGRAM District- Samastipur
======================================================
Manish Yadav @ Manish Kumar Son of Ashok Ray @ Ashok Kumar Ray R/o
Village- Narayanpur, P.S.- Pusa, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anish Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar
======================================================
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 offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 32, 36 and 41 of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 882 liters of liquor from a truck.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of the
seized truck and came to be implicated based on confessional
statement of Sarfraz and Md. Sahid in police custody which does not
have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45019 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
2/2
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 Trial Court within a period
of six weeks from today, be released on Provisional anticipatory
bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five 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 Karpurigram P.S. Case No. 42 of 2026 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event
if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case then
it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of seeking
anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this Court, as
such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed,
but after verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of
one case only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.