Patna High Court
Vinod Yadav @ Vinod KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions and verification of his criminal antecedents.
Summary
Vinod Yadav was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 30 litres of liquor from his motorcycle. He contended that he was not in possession of the liquor, that the vehicle was merely owned by him, and that he was unaware of any misuse by a third party named Vinayak who was apprehended at the spot. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that ownership of the vehicle alone should not render him culpable. The State opposed the bail. The High Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and conditioned on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents within six weeks. The order stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS to a person alleged to be the owner of a vehicle used in an excise offence?
- Whether ownership of a vehicle, without possession of the contraband, suffices to justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- vehicle ownership
- Section 30(a) Bihar Excise Act
- Section 482(2) BNSS
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83527 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2024 Thana- MADHEPUR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Vinod Yadav @ Vinod Kumar Son of Shiva Yadav R/o Village - Barki
Kusmaul, P.S. - Marauna, Dist. - Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baleshwar Kamat, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 19-01-2026 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 has antecedent of one case under the excise act and
allegation is of recovery of 30 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83527 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026
2/3
his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would
create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,
it is also submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that
Vinayak would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged who
was also apprehended from the spot.
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.
5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) 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
Madhepur P.S. Case No. 19 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 more
than 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.83527 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026
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 has antecedent of one
case only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…