Patna High Court
MANTOSH YADAVversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court provisionally granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to bail bond, sureties, and verification of his antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Mantosh Yadav, sought anticipatory bail after a case was registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 24.675 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not caught in possession, does not own the seized vehicle, and that the case is based solely on a confessional statement made by Ravi while in police custody, which he contended lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, asserting the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and appear before the trial court within six weeks. The order further directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and conditionally confirm the bail if no prior cases are found, otherwise the bail would not be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether a confessional statement made by a third person in police custody can form the basis for granting anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of ownership of the seized vehicle and absence of possession affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- Section 30
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83094 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2024 Thana- Manuapul District- West Champaran
======================================================
MANTOSH YADAV S/O Jugrup Yadav Resident of village- Bhawanipur,
P.S.- Shrinagar, District- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Renuka Ratnakar (App.125)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 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 24.675 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 Auto and he came to be implicated based on confessional
statement of Ravi in police custody which does not have any
evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83094 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/2
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 Manuapul P.S. Case No. 156 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 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…