Patna High Court
Rajesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his criminal antecedents and compliance with the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajesh Yadav, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 30(d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly recovering 4 litres of liquor and 240 kg of Mahua flowers from two motorcycles. He argued that nothing was recovered from his conscious possession, he was not the owner of the motorcycles, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by another accused in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warranted arrest. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs 5,000 bail bond with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. If more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; if only one prior case is found, the bail would be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the accusation is based solely on a confessional statement of another accused.
- Whether the absence of seized items in the petitioner’s conscious possession justifies anticipatory bail.
- Whether Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. empowers the High Court to grant provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- possession
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 482
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84928 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2024 Thana- DOBHI District- Gaya
======================================================
Rajesh Yadav S/o Baleshwar Yadav R/o Village - Masaudha, P.S - Bahera,
District - Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 20-01-2026 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 offence punishable under Sections 30(a) and
30(d) of Bihar Prohibition and 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 4 litres of liquor along with 240 kg
of Mahua flowers from two different motorcycles. It is next
submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such
nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and is not
the owner of any of the seized motorcycles and he came to be
implicated based on the confessional statement of Sanjay in
police custody which does not have any evidentiary value.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84928 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
2/2
5. 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 Court below
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.5000/- (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 Dobhi
P.S. Case No.218/2024, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than
one case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had
concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if
on verification it is found that petitioner has antecedent of one
case, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.