Patna High Court
Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Pratap YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The High Court held that, given the petitioner’s clean antecedent, non‑presence at the scene, and the grant of anticipatory bail to a co‑accused, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Summary
The petitioner, Sudhir Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR for alleged contravention of Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, wherein 86.4 litres of foreign liquor were seized from a motorcycle. The prosecution alleged his involvement, while the petitioner contended he was not the owner of the vehicle, was absent from the scene, and had no incriminating material in his possession. He also highlighted his clean criminal record and the fact that a co‑accused, Vijay Kumar Kushwaha, had already been granted anticipatory bail in a similar case. The State opposed the relief, arguing that a named accused cannot escape liability. Considering the petitioner’s lack of presence at the incident, clean antecedents, and the precedent of bail to the co‑accused, the Court ordered that, upon arrest or surrender within six weeks, the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond and sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a person named in an FIR for an offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act can be granted anticipatory bail.
- Whether the facts—absence from the scene, clean antecedent, and grant of bail to a co‑accused—justify the exercise of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 482(2)
- high court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8847 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2025 Thana- JOGAPATTI District- West Champaran
======================================================
Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Pratap Yadav S/o- Yogendra Yadav R/v- Ward No. 6
Harpur Tola Hariharpur P.S- Nadi 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. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 18-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Yogapatti P.S. Case No. 92 of 2025 registered
for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. As per prosecution case, 86.400 litre foreign
liquor was recovered from the motorcycle in question. Local
chaukidar disclosed the name of petitioner and co-accused Vijay
Kumar Kushwaha who fled away from the place of occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged
in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this case.
Learned counsel orally submits that petitioner is the not the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8847 of 2026(2) dt.18-02-2026
2/3
owner of the said motorcycle in question. Petitioner was not
found at the place of occurrence. Petitioner has nothing to do
with the alleged recovery. No incriminating article has been
recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. In the
light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no
case is made out against the petitioner under the provisions of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. Petitioner bears no criminal
antecedent. He further submits that on similar and identical
allegation, co-accused Vijay Kumar Kushwaha has already been
granted anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide Cr. Misc. No. 17959 of 2025 and hence, petitioner also
deserves anticipatory bail.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by submitting that
petitioner is FIR named accused and hence, he cannot escape
from the allegation made in FIR.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, petitioner was not found at the place of occurrence,
keeping in view clean antecedent of petitioner, co-accused has
already been granted anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court, argument advanced on behalf of both sides and
also taking into consideration the material available on record,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8847 of 2026(2) dt.18-02-2026
3/3
the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six
weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Exclusive Special Jude, Excise-II, Bettiah, West Champaran in
connection with Yogapatti P.S. Case No. 92 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of BNSS.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
alok/-
U T
Checking your session…