Patna High Court

VIKU YADAV @ VIKU KUMARversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 15 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Viku Yadav, was implicated in a case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for allegedly keeping 225 bags of urea for black marketing. He contended that the urea was seized from an open premises where three tenants, including a shopkeeper named Javed, also resided, and that he had no knowledge of the possession. The petitioner argued there was no independent witness to the seizure list and that the actual owner of the urea was the tenant. The State opposed the anticipatory bail application. Considering the open‑premises seizure, the presence of tenants, and lack of independent evidence, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000, two sureties of equal amount, surrender within four weeks, and compliance with Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the seizure.
Whether the petitioner can be held culpable for the alleged possession of urea in the absence of direct evidence.
Whether the lack of an independent witness to the seizure list warrants bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Essential Commodities Act — s. 7

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Essential Commodities Act
black marketing
seizure
tenants
bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90134 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-190 Year-2025 Thana- JITNA District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Viku Yadav @ Viku Kumar S/O Dindayal Rai R/O Vill.- Renganiya, P.S.-
                 Jitna @ Jeetna, Dist.- East Champaran.             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar                         ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Anang Mohan Sinha
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Parmeshwar Mehta
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   15-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the

                   Essential Commodities Act.

                                3. Allegation in the first information report is that the

                   petitioner had illegally kept 225 bags of Urea in his house for

                   the purposes of black marketing.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   recovery of the said bags of Urea was made from an open

                   premises and as a matter of fact, three tenants were also residing

                   in the same premises and the petitioner had no knowledge as to

                   who had kept the said Urea. Moreover, there is no independent

                   witness to the seizure list and the petitioner is a businessman

                   who always remains outside station for meeting his business

                   commitments. It has further been submitted that there are three

                   tenants residing in the house including one Javed, who is
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90134 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
                                                         2/2




                       Proprietor of Javed Khad Bhandar. The owner of the seized urea

                       is Javed, not the petitioner and this makes the entire case against

                       the petitioner suspicious.

                                    5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the

                       application for anticipatory bail.

                                        6. Taking into consideration the facts and

                       circumstances and also considering the fact that the recovery

                       has been made from an open premises where three tenants were

                       also residing, coupled with the fact that there is no independent

                       witness to the seizure list, let the above named petitioner in the

                       event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below

                       within a period of four weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on

                       furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with

                       two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

                       learned court below where the case is pending/successor court

                       in connection with Jitna P.S. Case No. 190 of 2025, subject to

                       the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the

                       Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.


                                                 (Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…