Patna High Court
Balbir YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail is appropriate and granted provisional bail subject to conditions and verification of antecedent.
Summary
The petitioners, Balbir Yadav and Pankaj Yadav, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case alleging violation of Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 22 litres of liquor. They argued that they have clean antecedents, that no liquor was recovered from their possession, and that the informant’s identity was omitted from the FIR, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioners be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500 each with two sureties, subject to verification of their criminal antecedent by the trial court. If any antecedent is discovered, the bail would be revoked; otherwise, it would be confirmed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC for an alleged offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the absence of recovery from the petitioners' possession and the non‑disclosure of the informant in the FIR affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- What conditions should be imposed on provisional anticipatory bail, including verification of antecedent.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90115 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2025 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Balbir Yadav S/o Maheshwar Yadav R/o Village - Usari, P.S - Gogri, District
- Khagaria
2. Pankaj Yadav S/o Maheshwar Yadav R/o Village - Usari, P.S - Gogri,
District - Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Seema Kumari
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Pronoti Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the
allegation is of recovery of 22 litres of liquor from diyara area
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and even alleged
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90115 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
2/3
petitioners and is accessible to public at large and they came to
be implicated at the instance of local person, but the name of the
person, who disclosed the name of the petitioners is not
disclosed in the F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the case of
the prosecution. It is next submitted that police in majority of
cases implicating innocent persons either at the behest of
Chaukidar, local person, secret information and confessional
statement in a mechanical manner without holding a proper
investigation.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in
the sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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 Gogri P. S. Case No.261 of 2025, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90115 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
3/3
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioners shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event,
if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of even one case,
then it would be presumed that petitioners for the purposes of
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed their antecedent
before this Court, in that event, the present provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but if on
verification, it is found that petitioners are persons with clean
antecedent, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…