Patna High Court
Abhishek KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties, and verification of criminal antecedents, with confirmation contingent on the accuracy of disclosed antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Abhishek Kumar and Indal Yadav, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 concerning alleged recovery of 210 litres of liquor. They argued that the liquor was not in their possession, the recovery site did not belong to them, and that they were implicated by a hostile chawkidar without proper investigation. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on the petitioners furnishing bail bonds of Rs.55,000 each with two sureties, and directed verification of their criminal antecedents. It stipulated that if the antecedent cases exceed those disclosed, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, the provisional order would be confirmed. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the alleged recovery of liquor and the petitioners' alleged lack of possession justify denial of bail.
- Whether the verification of the petitioners' criminal antecedents should affect the confirmation of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 438
- Section 482
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89357 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-182 Year-2025 Thana- BARHARA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Abhishek Kumar S/o Saroj Ray Resident of Village- Paiga, Police Station-
Barhara, District- Bhojpur at Ara
2. Indal Yadav S/o Bhuteli Yadav @ Bhuteni Ray @ Birendra Yadav Resident
of Village- Paiga, Police Station- Barhara,District- Bhojpur at Ara
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 22-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of two cases out of which one
case is under the Excise Act and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent
of eleven cases out of which eight cases are under the Excise
Act and allegation is of recovery of 210 litres of liquor from a
garden.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89357 of 2025(3) dt.22-01-2026
2/3
recovered from their conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the
petitioners and is accessible to villagers at large. It is further
submitted that petitioners came to be implicated at the instance
of the Chawkidar with whom they are on an inimical term. 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, confessional
statement or secret information without holding a proper
investigation of the case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, let the petitioners above-named, in
the event of their 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.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty-five Thousand) each 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 Barhara P.S. Case No. 182 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89357 of 2025(3) dt.22-01-2026
3/3
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 petitioners and
if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of more than
two cases and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of more than
eleven cases, it would be presumed that petitioners had
concealed their 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. 1 has antecedent of only two
cases and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of only eleven cases in
that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…