Patna High Court
Rabbu Yadav @ Ravindra YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail is granted subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Rabbu Yadav, feared arrest in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 40 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He contended that he was not in possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the seized vehicle, and that the case rested solely on a confessional statement of Dharmendra made in police custody, which he argued lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed his prayer for anticipatory bail. The Court, noting the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the absence of direct possession, granted provisional anticipatory bail on a bail bond of Rs 500 with two sureties, subject to the conditions of Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and to confirm the bail if no prior case is found, otherwise to withdraw it.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act where the accused is not in possession of the alleged contraband.
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody, without corroboration, can be the basis for denying anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent warrants the grant of provisional anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- possession
- Section 482
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7508 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-348 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP.
District- Jamui
======================================================
Rabbu Yadav @ Ravindra Yadav Son of Ghuttar Yadav Resident of Village -
Maniadda, P.S.- Jamui, Distrcit - Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikramadit, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-02-2026 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 40 liters of liquor from a motorcycle.
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 is not the owner of
the seized vehicle and came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Dharmendra in police custody which
does not have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7508 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
2/2
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 Excise P.S. Case No.
348c 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 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…