Patna High Court

Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 4 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted where the petitioner has three prior similar criminal antecedents and the nature of the offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act warrants denial of bail.

Summary

Manoj Yadav applied for anticipatory bail in a case involving the alleged recovery of 287.4 litres of liquor from his vehicle, alleged violations of Sections 30(a), 41 and 47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He claimed he was falsely implicated and had no knowledge of the goods, arguing that prima facie no case existed against him. The State opposed the bail, highlighting his three prior criminal antecedents of a similar nature and the lack of compliance with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court, considering the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s criminal history, declined to grant anticipatory bail. It directed that if the petitioner surrenders within six weeks, a regular bail application may be considered on its merits.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
Whether the petitioner’s three prior similar criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Whether non‑compliance with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, affects the decision on anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103

Subjects

anticipatory bail
bail
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
criminal antecedents
Section 103
Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita
Criminal law

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7078 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2025 Thana- BAHADURGANJ District- Kishanganj
                 ======================================================
                 Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar Yadav Son of Doman Yadav Resident of
                 Village- Dhanpura ward no. 04, P.S.- Jokihat, District- Araria

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   04-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                               2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Bahadurganj P.S. Case No. 185 of 2025, Special Case No.

                   103 of 2025 instituted for the offences punishable under

                   Sections 30(a), 41, 47 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                               3. The prosecution case, in short, is that total 287.4

                   litres of liquor was recovered from Scorpio car.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

                   petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.It is

                   further submitted that the name of the petitioner has transpired

                   as being the owner of the vehicle in question and has no

                   knowledge regarding the goods loaded in the vehicle. Petitioner
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7078 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     has no concern with the alleged recovery. Learned counsel,

                     therefore, submitted that prima-facie, no case is made out

                     against the petitioner.            The petitioner has three criminal

                     antecedents. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the

                     Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

                                5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

                     the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner stating that

                     petitioner bears three criminal antecedents of similar nature.

                                6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

                     the case as also petitioner having three criminal antecedent of

                     similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory

                     bail to the petitioner.

                                7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail

                     to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

                                8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the

                     learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and

                     prays for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own

                     merit without being prejudiced by this order.



                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…