Patna High Court
Manoj Yadav @ Manoj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties and verification of antecedents.
Summary
Manoj Yadav applied for anticipatory bail after learning that a case had been registered against him under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 600 litres of liquor from a forest. He argued that he was not arrested at the spot, no liquor was found in his possession, and that the complaint was motivated by a personal dispute with a chaukidar. The State opposed the bail, citing his antecedent of six prior excise cases. The Court considered the submissions and, applying Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.30,000 with two sureties and a six‑week surrender condition. The order further directed verification of his criminal antecedents, stating that if more than six cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- Section 30
- criminal antecedent
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- CrPC Section 438
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8761 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-621 Year-2025 Thana- RAJAOLI District- Nawada
======================================================
Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar S/O Umesh Yadav @ Umesh Prasad Resident
of Village- Pahwachak, P.s.- Rajauli, District- Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 16-03-2026 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 Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of six cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 600 litres of liquor from a bush at
Mohkama Forest.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
and is accessible to villagers at large. It is further submitted that
petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8761 of 2026(3) dt.16-03-2026
2/3
Chawkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is next
submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement
of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform
the police prior to the institution of the instant FIR which casts
an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is also 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.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner, above-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.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty 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 Rajauli P.S. Case No. 621 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.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8761 of 2026(3) dt.16-03-2026
3/3
Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if
it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than six cases,
it would be presumed that petitioner 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 has antecedent of only six cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…