Patna High Court
Sadanand Kumar @ Sadanand YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Sadanand Kumar Yadav, feared arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018, alleging recovery of 275 litres of liquor from two cycles. He argued that he was not arrested on the spot, no liquor was seized from his possession, and he was not the owner of the cycles, contending that the investigation relied on secret information. The State opposed his application for anticipatory bail. The Patna High Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, invoking Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with a condition that the trial court verify his criminal antecedents. If more than two prior cases are found, the bail will not be confirmed; if only two, it will be confirmed. The order thus provides conditional relief pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the present circumstances.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the absence of seizure from the petitioner’s possession justifies the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
- secret information
- seizure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89347 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2025 Thana- Hemjapur District- Munger
======================================================
Sadanand Kumar @ Sadanand Yadav son of Bhujo Yadav @ Bhujdev yadav
Resident of Village-Singhiya, P S Safiasarai District- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratneshwar Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anish Chandra, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 22-01-2026 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 offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 32 of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases out of which one case is under
the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 275 litres of liquor
from two cycles.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted that
petitioner is not the owner of any of the seized cycles and came to be
implicated based on the secret information which is the easiest way
to implicate someone without holding a proper investigation of the
case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89347 of 2025(3) dt.22-01-2026
2/2
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 before the learned trial court within a period
of six weeks from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 Hemjapur P.S. Case No. 76 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found
that petitioner has antecedent of more than two 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 two cases
in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…