Patna High Court
Sunil Yadav @ Sunil 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 antecedent and compliance with the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Yadav, was implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 for allegedly possessing 46.5 litres of liquor recovered from a motorcycle. He contended that he has a clean antecedent, was not arrested at the spot, did not own the vehicle, and was merely present at the behest of a chaukidar. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the prosecution’s case was weak and that his prior record was spotless. The State opposed the bail, but the Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.500, two sureties of equal amount, and verification of his antecedent within six weeks. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would be revoked, whereas confirmation of a clean record would lead to the bail being finalized.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner?
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the liquor seizure, despite lack of ownership of the vehicle, justifies denial of anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- liquor seizure
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90556 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-333 Year-2025 Thana- KALYANPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar S/o- Kapildeo Roy @ Kapil Ray R/v- Bairagitola
Ps- Kalyanpur District- East Champaran, Motihari
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Sucheta Yadav, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-01-2026 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
41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act,
2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 46.500 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
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 the seized vehicle and came to
the implicated at the instance of the Chawkidar but then it is
submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90556 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
2/3
of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform
the police prior to the institution of the instant FIR which casts
an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner
admittedly is a person with clean antecedent.
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.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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
Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 333 of 2025, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
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 even one case, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90556 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
3/3
confirmed but if it is found on verification that petitioner is a
person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…