Patna High Court
Vinod YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the petitioners' criminal antecedents and compliance with the conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) BNSS.
Summary
Vinod Yadav and Pramod Yadav were implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 for allegedly recovering 90 litres of liquor from the Sone Diyara area. The petitioners, who have prior excise cases (seven and five respectively), applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the liquor was not recovered from their conscious possession and that the FIR lacked the name of the informant. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.35,000 with two sureties and directed verification of the petitioners' criminal antecedents. If the antecedent cases exceed the disclosed numbers, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 despite their prior criminal antecedents.
- Whether the FIR is sufficient to justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the alleged recovery of liquor from a place not in the petitioners' possession affects bail considerations.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- criminal antecedent
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- provisional bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7181 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-421 Year-2025 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Vinod Yadav S/O Ramjit Yadav R/O Village- Mahadewa, P.S- Obra, Distt.-
Aurangabad, Bihar.
2. Pramod Yadav S/O Ramjit Yadav R/O Village- Mahadewa, P.S- Obra, Distt.-
Aurangabad, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Rupa Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and
30(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act,
2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of seven cases under the Excise
Act and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of five cases under the
Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 90 litres of liquor
from Sone Diyara Area.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7181 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
2/3
recovered from their conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the
petitioners and is accessible to villagers at large. It is further
submitted that petitioners came to be implicated at the instance
of the local persons but then the name of the person who
disclosed the name of the petitioners is not disclosed in the FIR
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is
next 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, secret
information or confessional statement without holding a proper
investigation of the case. It is also submitted that petitioners in
similar manner earlier also came to be implicated.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, let the petitioners above-named, in
the event of their 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7181 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
3/3
pending/successor court in connection with Obra P.S. Case No.
421 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial
court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and
if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of more than
seven cases and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of more than
five cases, it would be presumed that petitioners had concealed
their 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 no. 1 has antecedent of only seven cases and
petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of only five cases in that event
the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…