Patna High Court
Bedu Yadav @ Baiju YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Bedu Yadav, sought anticipatory bail after a case was registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 34 litres of liquor from his hut. He argued that the liquor was not in his conscious possession, the house is joint family property, and the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail, contending the allegations warranted arrest. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. If more than one prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if only one prior case, the bail will be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act where alleged possession is disputed
- Effect of the 2018 amendment removing deemed possession and presumed offender on bail considerations
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent warrants denial of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- possession
- joint family property
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91358 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-481 Year-2025 Thana- AKBARPUR District- Nawada
======================================================
Bedu Yadav @ Baiju Yadav S/o Late Dukhi Yadav Resident of Village-
Bhumai, P.S.- Akbarpur, District- Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, 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 under the excise act and
allegation is of recovery of 34 liters of liquor from hut of the
petitioner.
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 the house in
question is a joint family property, as such, it cannot be alleged
with certainty that it was petitioner who had kept the liquor in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91358 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/3
the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his
knowledge and after amendment in the excise act in the year
2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender
has been done away with. It is next submitted that petitioner
came to be implicated based on secret information which is the
easiest way to implicate someone without holding a proper
investigation.
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 Akbarpur
P.S. Case No. 481 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91358 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/3
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
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…