Patna High Court
Ranjeet Yadav @ Ranjeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application conditionally, subject to verification of the petitioners’ criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Ranjeet Yadav and Madhusudan Yadav, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case alleging offences under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Excise Act. They contended that they were not arrested at the scene, no liquor was recovered from their possession, and the complaint originated from a watchman’s report, raising doubts about the prosecution’s case. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences and the petitioners’ prior criminal records. The Court, after hearing both sides, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on the filing of bail bonds of Rs 40,000 each and verification of the petitioners’ antecedents. It directed that if the petitioners have more prior cases than disclosed, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, the provisional order would be made final. The order was issued by Justice Satyavrat Verma of the Patna High Court.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC to persons accused of offences under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioners’ prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 30(c)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- provisional bail
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65354 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-560 Year-2024 Thana- NOORSARAI District- Nalanda
======================================================
1. Ranjeet Yadav @ Ranjeet Kumar S/O Surendra Yadav R/O Vill.- Malbigha,
P.S.- Noorsarai, Dist.- Nalanda
2. Madhusudan Yadav @ Masudan Kumar S/O Surendra Yadav R/O Vill.-
Malbigha, P.S.- Noorsarai, Dist.- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satya Prakash
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 07-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 30(a), 30(c) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioner no.1 has antecedent of four cases out of which
three cases are under the Excise Act and petitioner no.2 has
antecedent of eight cases out of which seven cases are under the
Excise Act and the allegation is of recovery of 120 litres of
liquor from North side of Khanda, 75 litres of liquor from Dalan
of Soni Devi and 80 litres of liquor from possession of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65354 of 2025(3) dt.07-01-2026
2/3
Dharampal Yadav.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and even alleged
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the
petitioners and they came to be implicated at the instance of
Chaukidar, but then, it is submitted that if Chaukidar was aware
of the involvement of the petitioners 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 next submitted that police in majority of cases
implicating innocent persons either at the behest of Chaukidar,
local person, secret information and confessional statement in a
mechanical manner 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 petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in
the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) each with two
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65354 of 2025(3) dt.07-01-2026
3/3
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court where the case is pending/ successor Court in
connection with Noorsarai P. S. Case No.560 of 2024, subject to
the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioners shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event,
if it is found that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of more than
four cases and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of more than eight
cases, then it would be presumed that petitioners for the
purposes of obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed their
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 no.1 has antecedent of
more than four cases only and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of
more than eight cases only, in that event, the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…