Patna High Court
Pappu Yadav @ Pappu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail is granted subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Pappu Yadav, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 6.400 litres of liquor from a Scorpio vehicle he owned. He argued that the liquor was not in his conscious possession and that he was unaware his father, Harendra Yadav, misused the vehicle. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The Court, considering his clean antecedent and lack of direct possession, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and a six‑week window for surrender. The order also stipulated that the trial court verify his antecedent; if any prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed, otherwise it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who is alleged to be the owner of a vehicle from which liquor was recovered, despite lack of direct possession.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of knowledge of the alleged misuse justify granting bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
- vehicle ownership
- possession of liquor
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72949 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2021 Thana- YADOPUR District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Pappu Yadav @ Pappu Kumar S/o Harendra Yadav R/o Village - Rampur
Tengrahi (Dharmpur), P.S - Jadopur (Yadopur), District - Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-01-2026 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
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 6.400 liters of liquor from a Scorpio vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended 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 the seized
vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use
his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72949 of 2025(2) dt.17-01-2026
2/3
create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,
it is also submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that
Harendra would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged
who was also apprehended from the spot along with three other
accused persons.
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.
500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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 Jadopur
(Yadopur) P.S. Case No. 183 of 2021 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 even
one case then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the
purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72949 of 2025(2) dt.17-01-2026
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 is a person with clean
antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.