Patna High Court
Sitaram yadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond conditions and verification of the petitioners' criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Sitaram Yadav and Mahendra Mukhiya, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act concerning the alleged recovery of 810 litres of liquor from a boat. They argued they were not arrested at the spot, had no possession of the liquor, and were implicated solely on secret information, with Yadav having a clean antecedent and Mukhiya having one prior excise case. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, applying Section 482(2) of the BNSS, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a Rs.5,000 bond with two sureties and directed verification of their criminal antecedents. It stipulated that if Yadav is found to have any antecedent or Mukhiya more than one, the bail would be withdrawn for the concealing party, but if the antecedents remain as claimed, the bail would be confirmed. Thus, the court provided a conditional provisional bail pending further scrutiny.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioners' criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether reliance on secret information without seizure from the accused justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- criminal antecedent
- provisional bail
- secret information
- liquor seizure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8474 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-220 Year-2025 Thana- BHAPTIAHI District- Supaul
======================================================
1. Sitaram yadav son of Late Dev Narayan Yadav Resident Of Simari Ward no.
02, Ps- Bhaptiyahi, (Bhaptai Sarai ), Dist- Supaul
2. Mahendra Mukhiya son of Kant Lal Mukhiya Resident Of Simari Ward no.
02, Ps- Bhaptiyahi, (Bhaptai Sarai ), Dist- Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeev Verma
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Nazir Ansari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 15-04-2026 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 Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and petitioner
no. 2 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 810 litres of liquor from a boat.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and are not the owner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8474 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
2/3
of the seized boat and they came to be implicated based on
secret information which is the easiest way to implicate
someone without holding a proper investigation, when petitioner
no. 1 admittedly is a person with clean antecedent.
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, 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. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)
each 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 Bhaptiyahi P.S. Case No. 220 of 2025
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section Section
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 in the
event if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of even
one case and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of more than one
case then it would be presumed that petitioners, for the purposes
of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed their antecedent before
this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8474 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
3/3
be confirmed with respect to that petitioner who had concealed his
criminal antecedent before this Court, but after verification if it is
found that petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and
petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of one case in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…