Patna High Court
CR. MISC./56543/2026 of Dharmendra Yadav @ Dharmendar Kumar Vs The State of Bihar on 13 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56543 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2026 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Dharmendra Yadav @ Dharmendar Kumar Son of Late Vishwanath Ray Resident of village -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56543 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2026 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran ======================================================
Dharmendra Yadav @ Dharmendar Kumar Son of Late Vishwanath Ray Resident of village - Mahuawa @ Makri Mahuawa, P.S.- Piprakothi, District - East Champaran (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr.Pramod Kumar Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
13-08-2026
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, 123 and 110 of BNS and Sections 30(a), 34, 36 and 41(1) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of four cases under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 16 litres of liquor from the poultry farm of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession. It is next submitted Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56543 of 2026(2) dt.13-08-2026
that no prudent person would use his own poultry farm for committing an occurrence and thus would create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated and at the same time shall bring disrepute to his business. It is further submitted that the poultry farm is a place where customers in large number come and it might be a possibility that someone fearing police left meagre amount of liquor. It is also submitted that he came to be implicated at the instance of local people, but then it is submitted that if local people was aware about the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence, then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the instant FIR, which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court 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 Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 218 of 2026 subject to the conditions as laid down under Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56543 of 2026(2) dt.13-08-2026
Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
7. 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 more than four cases 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 antecedent of four cases in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
Sumit/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T