Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Kumar Yadav vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ajay Yadav, seeks anticipatory bail in connection with PS Case No. 433 of 2021, registered for offences under the Indian Penal Code, Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and NDPS Act. The FIR alleges recovery of 1522 litres of cough syrup from a transport company. The petitioner's name surfaced based on the disclosure of a co-accused. The petitioner contends that there was no recovery from his possession, the bills cited by the co-accused do not pertain to him as he owns M/s Shanti Medical Agency at Araria, while the bills refer to Shanti Medical, Purnia, and the GST numbers differ. He also notes that a co-accused, Ashutosh Kumar, has been granted anticipatory bail.
Held
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the fact that the petitioner's name had transpired in the confessional statement of a co-accused and that the petitioner was not concerned with the consignment in question. The reasoning appears to be based on the petitioner's assertion that the recovered goods and related documentation did not pertain to his agency, and that his involvement was solely based on the disclosure statement of another accused. The Court also took into account that a co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail. The ratio decidendi is that if an individual's involvement in a case is based solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, and there is no direct recovery from their possession, and they can demonstrate a lack of connection to the alleged offence, anticipatory bail may be granted. The operative direction is to release the petitioner on bail upon arrest or surrender, subject to furnishing bail bonds and adhering to conditions under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. and other stipulated conditions, including cooperation with the investigation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's apprehension of arrest is justified, considering the allegations against him and the evidence presented, particularly concerning his alleged involvement in the recovery of 1522 litres of cough syrup (Question of law and fact). 2. Whether the petitioner has made out a case for anticipatory bail, given that his name surfaced on the disclosure of a co-accused and he claims no direct involvement or possession of the seized goods (Question of law and fact). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argues that there was no recovery from his conscious and physical possession, and Section 100 of Cr.P.C. was not complied with. He asserts that the bills mentioned by the co-accused do not concern him, as his agency is in Araria, while the bills refer to a shop in Purnia. He further contends that the police implicated him without verifying the actual owner and that the GST numbers are different. Reliance is placed on the anticipatory bail granted to co-accused Ashutosh Kumar. Revenue's arguments: The State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail due to the huge recovery and the delay in approaching the court. The petitioner counters that he was unaware of the case as he runs a different agency and approached the court as soon as he learned of it.
Sections Cited
Section 100, Section 438(2), Section 275, Section 276, Section 30(a), Section 21(C), Section 34
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 3 12-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 275, 276, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and Section 21(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
The allegation in the FIR is with regard to recovery of 1522 litres cough syrup from a transport company.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no recovery from conscious and physical possession of the petitioner and there is no compliance of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. It would be evident from the FIR itself that the name of the petitioner has transpired on the disclosure made by the co- 2/3 accused before the police. It is further submitted that the two bills which have been referred to by the co-accused do not concern the present petitioner and as a matter of fact, the petitioner is alleged to be the owner of M/s Shanti Medical Agency at Araria, whereas the bills show the name of one Shanti Medical, N.H.-31, Purnia. It is next submitted that without verifying the real owner of the said shop, the police has falsely implicated the petitioner as the GST number of the shop is also different. It is also submitted that co-accused Ashutosh Kumar, who was the proprietor of the other agency, has already been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 29.01.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 70704 of 2021. 5. Learned APP for the State, however, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground of huge recovery and also the delay in approaching the Court for anticipatory bail. In response to the same, it is submitted that the petitioner, being a different agency altogether, was never aware of any case of the present nature being pending against him and as soon as he got to know of the same, he has approached the Court for anticipatory bail.
Considering the fact that the name of the petitioner has transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused and he is 3/3 not concerned with the said consignment, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned lower Court where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with K.Hat (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 433 of 2021, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C/ 482 (2) of the BNSS, 2023 and also to the following conditions that: (I) One of the bailors shall be a family member or a close relative of the petitioner, who would give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related to the petitioner. (II) The petitioner would cooperate with the Investigating Agency and make himself available before the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station as and when required till investigation is pending against him.
divyanshi/- (Soni Shrivastava, J) U T
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.