Baiju Yadav @ Baidyanath Kumar @ Baijnath Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18860 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-256 Year-2025 Thana- KISHANPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Baiju Yadav @ Baidyanath Kumar @ Baijnath Kumar Yadav S/oChandeshwari Yadav Resident of Village- Kishanpur Ward No. 14, P.S.- Kishanpur, District- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Patla Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-03-2026

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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 11.640 litres of liquor from house of the petitioner. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested 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 the house or the liquor kept in the house was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18860 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026 2/3 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 and he came to be implicated at the instance of local person but then the name of the person who disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR, which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner has not been implicated based on secret information and is a person with clean antecedent.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, 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.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 Kishanpur P.S. Case No.256/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18860 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026 3/3 event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if on verification it is found that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T