Patna High Court
Yadolal YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail may be granted as the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle and has no criminal antecedent, notwithstanding the bar under Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Yadolal Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged possession of 7.92 litres of liquor seized from a motorcycle. He contended that he was not the owner of the vehicle, had no criminal antecedent, and was implicated only because his name was disclosed by another accused. The prosecution argued that another accused had named him. Relying on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) if no offence is made out, the court examined the petitioner’s lack of ownership and clean record. The court granted anticipatory bail with a set of conditions, including bond, sureties, regular appearances before police and court, and prohibition on tampering with evidence. The order remains subject to revocation if the petitioner is later found to have a criminal antecedent.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2)?
- Is the petitioner likely to be implicated in the offence given he is not the owner of the motorcycle and has no prior criminal record?
- What conditions are appropriate for granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances?
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- seizure of liquor
- motorcycle ownership
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8680 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-379 Year-2024 Thana- JOGAPATTI District- West Champaran
======================================================
Yadolal Yadav Son of Shyam Lal Yadav R/o Village - Dihi Dhabelwa, P.S. -
Yogapatti, District - West champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, 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 Yogapatti P.S. Case No. 379 of 2024 for the
offence under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act lodged on 03.12.2024 by the informant, Chandrakishore
Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police intercepted
a motorcycle and there is recovery/seizure of 7.920 liters from
its dickey. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only
because of disclosure of his name by Nanhak Yadav, he got
implicated, the petitioner is not the owner of the motorcycle and
he do not have any criminal antecedent.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8680 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/4
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 the
other accused has named him.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that the petitioner is not the owner of the motorcycle nor
has any 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
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/-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8680 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/4
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise II,
Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Yogapatti P.S. Case
No. 379 of 2024 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8680 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
4/4
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…