IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56972 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-157 Year-2026 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Govind Yadav @ Govind Kumar @ Govinda Yadav S/o Ramakant Yadav @ Ramakant Chaudhary Resident of Village - Hira Pakad, PS - Yadopur, District - Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate (Through V.C.) For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 18-08-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner through virtual mode and learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act read with Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 330 liters of liquor along with one loaded 9 mm pistol with magazine and live cartridges along with two mobiles were seized from a Suzuki Brezza Car. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and even the seized vehicle does not belong to the petitioner and he came to be Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56972 of 2026(2) dt.18-08-2026 2/2 implicated based on confessional statement of Amit and Rahul in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that no doubt name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Amit and Rahul in police custody, but then from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that apart from liquor, arms and ammunition were also seized from the car. It is further submitted that though confessional statement, in police custody, does not have any evidentiary value, but then statement made by the accused in custody requires to be corroborated for which interrogation of the petitioner is required. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected. Rishabh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T