Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Durgesh Yadav @ Durgesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and verification of his criminal antecedents.

Summary

The petitioners, Durgesh Yadav and Sikandar Yadav, filed anticipatory bail applications in a case registered under Sections 274, 275 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.S and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. Durgesh Yadav withdrew his application, which the court allowed. Sikandar Yadav, who has nine prior criminal cases (six under the Excise Act) and is alleged to have been involved in the recovery of large quantities of liquor, argued that he was not caught in possession, was not the owner of the seized vehicles, and that the sole basis for his implication was a confessional statement of another person, which he claimed lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The court, considering these submissions, granted Sikandar provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing a bail bond of Rs 45,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedents; if more than nine cases are found, the bail will not be confirmed. The order is made under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the offences under the Excise Act and B.N.S.S.
  • Whether a confessional statement made in police custody can form the sole basis for anticipatory bail denial.
  • Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents (nine cases) affect the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • excise offences
  • confessional statement
  • criminal antecedent
  • provisional bail
  • Section 438 CrPC
  • Section 482 BNS
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8749 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-393 Year-2025 Thana- LADANIA District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
           1.     Durgesh Yadav @ Durgesh Kumar S/o Sunil Yadav R/o Village - Bishunpur,
                  P.S - Ladaniya (Ladania), District - Madhubani, State - Bihar
           2.     Sikandar Yadav @ Sikendra Yadav S/o Krishnadev Yadav R/o Village -
                  Bishunpur, P.S - Ladaniya (Ladania), District - Madhubani, State - Bihar
                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                       ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Arun Kumar, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   16-03-2026                  1. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset,

                   seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application

                   with respect to petitioner no. 1, namely, Durgesh Yadav @

                   Durgesh Kumar who was arrested during pendency of the same.

                                2. Permission is accorded.

                                3. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application with

                   respect to petitioner no. 1 is dismissed as withdrawn.

                                4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                5. The petitioner no. 2 apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Sections 274, 275

                   and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Section 30(a) of the Bihar

                   Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

                                6. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 submits
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8749 of 2026(3) dt.16-03-2026
                                            2/3




          that petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of nine cases out of which

          six cases are under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery

          of 216 litres of liquor from a motorcycle and 324 litres of liquor

          from a Toyata.

                       7. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 submits

          that petitioner no. 2 was not arrested from the spot, as such,

          nothing was recovered from his conscious possession. It is

          further submitted that petitioner no. 2 is not the owner of any of

          the seized vehicles and came to be implicated based on the

          confessional statement of Jaiprakash Singh in police custody

          which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law. It

          is next submitted that after amendment in the Excise Act in the

          year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed

          offender has been done away with. It is next submitted that once

          an accused is implicated in a case relating to excise the police

          start implicating mechanically either at the instance of the

          Chawkidar, local person, secret information or confessional

          statement without holding a proper investigation of the case.

                       8. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner no. 2.

                       9. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioner no. 2, let the petitioner no. 2, above-
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8749 of 2026(3) dt.16-03-2026
                                                       3/3




                     named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of

                     six weeks from today, be released on provisional anticipatory

                     bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty-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 Ladaniya P.S. Case

                     No. 393 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under

                     Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

                                  10. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial

                     Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner no. 2

                     and if it is found that petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of more

                     than nine cases, it would be presumed that petitioner no. 2 had

                     concealed his antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the

                     anticipatory bail application in that event the provisional

                     anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if it is found

                     on verification that petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of only nine

                     cases in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall

                     be confirmed forthwith.


                                                                         (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.