Patna High Court
Daroga YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail was granted subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Constable Daroga Yadav, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 61 litres of liquor from a motorcycle he owned. He argued that he was not present at the spot of seizure, had no liquor in his possession, and was unaware that his relative Milan misused the vehicle. The State opposed his application for anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and conditioned on verification of his criminal antecedents. The order stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; if only one antecedent exists, the provisional bail would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle and alleged lack of knowledge of the offence justify bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent affects the confirmation of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- vehicle ownership
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90901 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-258 Year-2025 Thana- MANIHARI District- Katihar
======================================================
Daroga Yadav S/o Pradeep Yadav Resident of Village- Baghmara, Ward No.
07, P.S.- Manihari, District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghvendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 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 Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of
recovery of 61 liters of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing
was recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be
implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized
vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use
his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90901 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/3
create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,
it is also submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that
his relative, Milan, would misuse the vehicle in the manner as
alleged who was also apprehended from the spot.
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, 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.
5,000/- (Rupees Five 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 Manihari
P.S. Case No. 258 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 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
in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more
than one case then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the
purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his
antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90901 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after
verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of one
case only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…