Patna High Court
Pintu Yadav @ Pintu Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, confirming it only if the antecedent does not exceed three cases.
Summary
Petitioner Pintu Yadav sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of 175 litres of liquor from two motorcycles, one of which he owned. He argued that he was not in possession of the liquor, was unaware of his friend's alleged misuse of the vehicle, and that a prudent person would not use his own vehicle to commit the offence. The State opposed the bail. The High Court granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.15,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. The court stipulated that if the petitioner is found to have more than three prior excise cases, the bail would not be confirmed; if exactly three, the bail would be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in an excise offence case where he is the owner of the seized vehicle but not in possession of the contraband.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent of three excise cases affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- vehicle ownership
- criminal antecedent
- Section 30
- Section 482
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69781 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-227 Year-2024 Thana- CHANDAUTI District- Gaya
======================================================
Pintu Yadav @ Pintu Kumar Yadav S/o Late Mosafir Yadav @ Late Musafir
Yadav R/o Village- Dallibigha, P.S.- Belaganj, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rabia Gulnaz
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Sharda Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 07-01-2026 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 Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of three cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 175 litres of liquor from two
different motorcycles.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
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 one of the
seized motorcycles. It is next submitted that no prudent person
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69781 of 2025(3) dt.07-01-2026
2/3
would use his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and
thus would create evidence against himself and hence would get
implicated, it is further submitted that petitioner was completely
unaware that his friend would misuse the vehicle in the manner
as alleged.
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 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.
15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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
Chandauti P.S. Case No. 227 of 2024, 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 three cases then it would be presumed that petitioner, for
the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69781 of 2025(3) dt.07-01-2026
3/3
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 three
cases in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall
be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…