Bittu Kumar Yadav @ Bittu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Khurshid Anwar, A.P.P. ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 07-04-2026

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 172.8 liters of liquor from a truck.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of the seized truck and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of Mukesh in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that after

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22072 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026 2/3

¶18

amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with.

¶19

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

¶20

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 Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 18 of 2026 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

¶21

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 even 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 clean antecedent, in

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22072 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026 3/3

¶23

that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

¶24

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶25

Gaurav Sinha/-

¶26

U T

Bittu Kumar Yadav @ Bittu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bittu Kumar Yadav @ Bittu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Awdesh Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Vikram @ Bhutti @ Vikram Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rocky Raj @ Rocky Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sachin Kumar @ Sachin Kr. Vs The State of Bihar

Isha Alam @ Eisa Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Raj Vs The State of Bihar