Sunil Yadav @ Surendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19262 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-236 Year-2025 Thana- LADANIA District- Madhubani ====================================================== Sunil Yadav @ Surendra Yadav S/O Biltu Yadav R/O Village- Yogia, P.SLadaniya, Distt.- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Khurshid Anwar, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026
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 274, 275 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 as well as Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of four cases under the Excise Act but then the order impugned does not record with clarity the antecedent of the petitioner, as such, the defect was pointed out by the office.
4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the defect, as pointed out by the office, is hereby ignored.
5. It is reiterated and submitted that petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19262 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026 2/3 antecedent of four cases under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 450 litres of liquor from a mango orchad and 225 litres of liquor from another mango orchard and a motorcycle was seized.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to be implicated at the instance of the Chawkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is next submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement 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. It is also submitted that once an accused is implicated in a case relating to excise the police start implicating mechanically either at the instance of the Chawkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret information without holding a proper investigation of the case.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19262 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026 3/3 counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty 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 Ladaniya P.S. Case No. 236 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
9. However, 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 more than four cases, 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 confirmed but if it is found on verification that petitioner has antecedent of only four cases in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T