Patna High Court
Raja Yadav @ Raja KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Raja Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing 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, had no liquor in his possession, and was not the owner of the cycles, contending that the investigation relied on secret information. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.20,000 with two sureties, invoking Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order conditioned the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent; if more than four prior cases are found, the bail will not be confirmed, otherwise it will be confirmed. The decision balances the petitioner’s right to liberty with the State’s interest in ensuring proper investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in the present circumstances
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged antecedent of four prior excise cases affects the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- excise law
- liquor seizure
- criminal antecedent
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90006 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2025 Thana- Hemjapur District- Munger
======================================================
Raja Yadav @ Raja Kumar 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 petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of four cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery 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.90006 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.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty 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 four 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 four cases
in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…