Jitendra YadavversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47500 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2026 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Jitendra Yadav S/O Mahavir Yadav Resident of Village- Ramnagar, Kalikapur,
                 Ward No. 09, Police Station- Ghoghardiha, District- Madhubani.
                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                       ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Sangeeta Sharma, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   10-07-2026                  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),

                   38(1) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise

                   (Amendment) Act, 2022.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of seven cases out of which six cases

                   are under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 1.5

                   litres of liquor from the cabin of the truck along with fake

                   fertilizer and lime.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was

                   recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted

                   that petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47500 of 2026(2) dt.10-07-2026
                                            2/3




          be implicated at the instance of the local spy but then it is

          submitted that once an accused is implicated in a case relating to

          excise the police start implicating mechanically either at the

          instance of the Chawkidar, local person, confessional statement

          or secret information without holding a proper investigation of

          the case. It is next submitted that petitioner in similar manner

          earlier also came to be implicated in cases relating to excise.

                       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.35,000/-

          (Rupees Thirty-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

          Phulparas P.S. Case No. 120 of 2026, 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
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47500 of 2026(2) dt.10-07-2026
                                                       3/3




                     and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than

                     seven cases, 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 has antecedent of only seven cases in that event the

                     provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T