Sikandra Yadav @ Sikendar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36119 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2026 Thana- LADANIA District- Madhubani ====================================================== Sikandra Yadav @ Sikendar Yadav Son of Kishundev Yadav Resident of Village- Bishanpur, P.S.- Ladaniya, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 02-06-2026 The Court proceeding is being conducted through virtual mode.

2. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned APP for the State.

3. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Ladaniya P.S. Case No.20 of 2026 lodged on 13.01.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 274, 275 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 pending before the Court of Exclusive Special Judge Excise, Madhubani.

4. As per the prosecution, the total recovery of 1800 litres of Nepali liquor and 19 liter beer have been made from a Scorpio vehicle, which is the subject matter of the present case.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36119 of 2026(2) dt.02-06-2026 2/2 also submits that the said recovery has not been made from conscious possession of the petitioner and his name has been transpired only on suspicion of local Chowkidar. Counsel further submits that criminal antecedent of the petitioner is not clean as there are nine criminal cases pending against him in which 6 cases are relating to Excise Act.

6. Counsel further submits that the alleged vehicle from where the recovery has been made, does not belongs to petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is not a driver of the said vehicle.

7. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that criminal antecedent of the petitioner is not clean as there are nine criminal cases pending against him in which 6 cases are relating to Excise Act and this aspect must be taken into consideration.

8. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Prakashmani/- U T