Supreme Court reverses anticipatory bail denial order by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra

In Amarjit Yadav @ Amarjit Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale passed a 5-page long order dated February 20, 2026. The order reads: "....we do not find any good ground to deny the prayer sought for by the appellant. Hence, appeal is allowed and appellant is ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional Investigating Officer...." It reversed the 3-page long order dated June 27, 2025 by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra of the Patna High Court. The appellant had approached the Supreme Court apprehending his arrest in the FIR registered on May 13, 2025 under Sections 30(a), 32(c) and 41(1)(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 after denial of anticipatory bail by the High Court. 

The gist of the prosecution case is that appellant was a prospective purchaser of 260.250 liters of Indian made Foreign Liquor, which was being transported in a truck from Haryana to Bihar and the driver of the truck Sunil Paswan in his statement had disclosed the name of appellant as the potential buyer.

The Court observed: "It is an admitted fact that the contraband has not been seized from the possession of appellant and it is based on the co-accused statement, the appellant has been roped in as an accused. The courts-below had rejected the prayer of the appellant on the ground of his criminal antecedents, however none of the offences alleged are under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. Be that as it may, pursuant to our interim order, appellant has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has cooperated with the investigation which is also fairly admitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent."

Before the High Court, the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was innocent and was falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner had no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. He also submitted that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. It was submitted that the petitioner was neither owner nor driver of the truck in question. Name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of confessional statement made by co-accused person as the petitioner was receiver of the seized items and the same has got no evidentiary value. He submitted that similarly situated co-accused was granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated April 2, 2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 19754 of 2025. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

In his order Justice Mishra had concluded: "6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. The prayer is rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below and pray for regular bail. If any such application is filed, the Court below shall consider and dispose of the same on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order."