Patna High Court
Santosh SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to Sanjay Chaudhary but denied to Santosh Singh.
Summary
The petitioners, Santosh Singh and Sanjay Chaudhary, sought anticipatory bail after a FIR was lodged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018 for allegedly possessing 20 litres of illicit Mahua liquor recovered from an open field. They contended that they had no possession of the liquor and were implicated solely on the basis of a village chowkidar’s information, asserting innocence. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the seriousness of the offence. The High Court examined the FIR, the informant’s report, and the petitioners’ criminal records, noting that Santosh Singh had two prior convictions of a similar nature while Sanjay Chaudhary had a clean antecedent. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail to Sanjay Chaudhary under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, subject to bond and surety conditions, but denied bail to Santosh Singh due to his prior offences.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018.
- Whether the prior criminal antecedents of the accused affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30
- Section 482
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act
- Mahua liquor
- criminal antecedent
- High Court
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10126 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-375 Year-2025 Thana- DAWATH District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Santosh Singh, aged about 38 years, Male, Son of Tufani Singh, Resident of
Village- Bidadhi, P.S.- Dawath, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.
2. Sanjay Chaudhary, aged about 38 years, Male, Son of Teshlal Chaudhary,
Resident of Village- Tilakpura, P.S.- Suryapura, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Dawath P.S. Case No. 375 of 2025 instituted for the
offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Amendment Act, 2018.
3. As per the prosecution case, total 20 litres of
country made Mahua liquor has been recovered from the open
field.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent have committed no offence and have
falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that petitioner
no. 1 has two criminal antecedent rather petitioner no. 2 has got
clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the petition. He further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10126 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/3
submits that the petitioners have been implicated in this case
only on the basis of disclosure of the village Chowkidar. He
next submits that nothing has been recovered from the
conscious possession of the petitioners and the said illegal
liquor has been recovered from the open field. He lastly submits
that the occurrence took place in the village at about 15:30 P.M.
but the villagers were not made seizure list witnesses in this
case, so its raises serious doubts. Petitioner no. 1 has got two
criminal antecedents but petitioner no. 2 has got clean
antecedent as stated in para 3 of the petition.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. From perusal of the FIR and the impugned order of
the learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court No. 1, Rohtas
at Sasaram dated 16.01.2026, it appears that on the basis of
written report of the informant, namely Ravi Ranjan Kumar,
FIR has been registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018 against two
accused persons, all are petitioners. It also appears that total 20
litres of country made Mahua liquor has been recovered from
the open field. Petitioners are not arrested at the spot. It also
appears that petitioner no. 2 has got clean antecedent as stated in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10126 of 2026(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/3
para 3 of the petition, so considering all these aspects of the case
and submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, I am
inclined to grant anticipatory bail only petitioner no. 2, namely
Sanjay Chaudhary.
7. Accordingly, let the petitioner no. 2, namely
Sanjay Chaudhary in the event of his arrest or surrender before
the trial Court within six weeks from today, be released on
anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Judge Excise
Court No.1, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Dawath P.S.
Case No. 375 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down in
Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
8. So far as petitioner no.1, namely Santosh Singh is
concerned, he has two criminal antecedents prior to this case
which belongs to the similar nature of offence, so in this
circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioner no. 1, namely Santosh Singh and his prayer for
anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.
U
Checking your session…