Patna High Court
ARVIND YADAV @ ARVIND KUMAR YADAV @ ARBIND YADAVversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could be granted as the seizure was from a relative’s premises, the motorcycle belonged to the petitioner’s sister, and no offence under the Excise Act was made out against the petitioner.
Summary
Arvind Yadav sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (Ghanshyampur PS Case No. 414 of 2025) under sections 338/336(3) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged possession of 25.92 litres of foreign liquor seized from a motorcycle parked at his relative’s house. The petitioner argued that the motorcycle belonged to his sister, Karishma Kumari, and that the seizure was from his relative’s premises, not his own, and cited the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar which permits anticipatory bail in excise matters despite the bar in Section 76(2) if no offence is made out. The State opposed, noting the family connection among the accused. The court, relying on the cited precedent and the facts that the liquor was recovered from the relative’s house and that the petitioner had no criminal antecedent, granted anticipatory bail with a set of strict conditions. The order remains conditional on the petitioner’s compliance and may be revoked if a criminal antecedent is discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether an anticipatory bail application can be entertained in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2) of the Act.
- Whether the seizure of liquor from a relative’s house and the ownership of the motorcycle by the petitioner’s sister disqualify the petitioner from liability.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of prior criminal record justifies the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 336(3), 338
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- seizure of liquor
- Section 76(2) bar
- family members
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8626 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-414 Year-2025 Thana- GHANSHYAMPUR District- Darbhanga
======================================================
ARVIND YADAV @ ARVIND KUMAR YADAV @ ARBIND YADAV S/o
Late Jagunandan Yadav Resident of Village- Bagras, Police Station-
Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Ghanshyampur P.S. Case No. 414 of 2025 for
the offence under sections 338/336(3) of the BNS and section
30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act lodged on
10.12.2025 by the informant, Prashant Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police on secret
information, raided the house of Bechu Yadav and Arvind
Kumar Yadav. There is recovery/seizure of 25.92 liters of
foreign liquor from the dicky of the motorcycle parked in the
varandah of Bechu Yadav. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
recovery/seizure is from the house of Bechu Yadav, only
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8626 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/4
because the motorcycle belongs to his sister, beside her, the
petitioner has also been implicated.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in
2019 (2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an
application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar
Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar
under Section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation
made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made
out.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that all
of them are family members.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that recovery/seizure is from the house of Bechu Yadav, the
motorcycle belongs to Karishma Kumari and not to this
petitioner and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, in that
background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of
anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. If, however, it is found that contrary to the
statement made in paragraph-3, the petitioner has criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8626 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/4
antecedent, the present order shall become infructuous.
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the
receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge-II, (Excise Act),
Darbhanga in connection with Ghanshyampur P.S. Case No. 414
of 2025 subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the Police
Station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned
police station every fortnight for six months to mark his
attendance and after the end of the period, the certificate shall be
submitted before the Trial Court failing which steps shall be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8626 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
4/4
taken for the cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(vi) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…