Jitu Yadav @ Ravi Raj v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38913 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2019 Thana- KALUAHI District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

Jitu Yadav @ Ravi Raj S/o Mahendra Yadav R/o Vill-Laskariya,P.SJaynagar, Distt-Madhubani 2.

Pankaj Yadav @ Pankaj Kumar Yadav S/o Mahendra Yadav R/o VillLaskariya,P.S-Jaynagar, Distt-Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Kumari Pallavi For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Kanhiya Kishor ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-06-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 273 and 34 of the IPC and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 360 litres of liquor from an Alto car and 180 litres of liquor from a Maruti car.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38913 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026 2/3 recovered from their conscious possession and petitioner no. 1 came to be implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized Alto vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated, it is further submitted that petitioner no. 1 was completely unaware that his driver would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged. It is next submitted that petitioner no. 2 came to be implicated based on confessional statement of Mitilesh in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value.

5.

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

6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender 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) each 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 Kaluahi P.S. Case No. 83 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38913 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026 3/3 the BNSS.

7.

It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of even one case and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of more than one case then it would be presumed that petitioners, for the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed their antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed with respect to that petitioner who had concealed his criminal antecedent before this Court, but after verification if it is found that petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of one case in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T