Patna High Court
Ajay YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajay Yadav, applied for anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109, 132, 324(4) of the B.N.S., 2023, Sections 27, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018. The FIR alleges that 111.78 litres of liquor, 30 litres of beer, arms and ammunition were recovered from several vehicles and that the accused fled the scene after discharging firearms. The petitioner contended that he has a clean record, does not own the seized vehicles, and was falsely implicated based on a villager's disclosure. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the case involves serious offences under the Excise and Arms Acts, that the investigation is at a nascent stage, and that granting bail could enable the petitioner to abscond or tamper with evidence. The Court, after considering the submissions, declined to grant anticipatory bail, finding the petition insufficient to outweigh the seriousness of the allegations.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged possession of large quantities of liquor, arms, and discharge of firearms.
- Whether the petitioner is likely to abscond or tamper with evidence if bail is granted.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences under the Arms Act and Excise Act precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 26, 27, 35
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 109, 132, 191(2), 191(3), 324(4)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- Excise Act
- liquor seizure
- false implication
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90026 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-181 Year-2025 Thana- BRAHMPUR District- Buxar
======================================================
Ajay Yadav Son of Late Nand Ji Yadav Resident of Village - Balua, P.S.-
Brahmpur, District - Buxar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shankar Dayal Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Asha Devi, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109,
132, 324(4) of B.N.S., 2023, Sections 27, 26 and 35 of the Arms
Act as well as Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act,
2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 111.78 litres of liquor along with 30 litres of beer from
different vehicles, as detailed in the FIR, along with arms and
ammunition. It is also alleged that the accused persons fled from
the place of occurrence after resorting to firing.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that petitioner is not the owner of
any of the seized vehicles and is a person with clean antecedent. It
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90026 of 2025(2) dt.17-01-2026
2/2
is also submitted that petitioner came to be implicated based on the
disclosure made by the Chowkidar and villagers.
5. The learned APP vehemently opposes the
anticipatory bail application and submits that the case is not only
under the Excise Act but under the Arms Act also and it is
specifically alleged in the FIR that the accused persons were
fleeing resorted to firing. It is also submitted that no averment or
pleading has been made in the anticipatory bail application that as
to what the petitioner does. It is also submitted that investigation
of the case is in its nascent stage and if privilege of anticipatory
bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond or try
to tamper with the evidence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected in
connection with Brahmpur P.S. Case No.181 of 2025, pending in
the court of learned Exclusive Excise Special Court No.-02,
Buxar/Successor Court.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…