Patna High Court
Rajkumar ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajkumar Chaudhary, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, alleging recovery of 450 litres of liquor from three motorcycles. He argued he had no prior criminal record, was not in possession of the liquor, did not own the vehicles, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement of a co-accused in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 and two sureties, with the condition that the trial court verify the petitioner’s antecedent within six weeks. If any prior case is found, the bail may be revoked; otherwise, it will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in view of the allegations under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused in police custody can form a basis for denying anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic and Substance (BNSS) Act — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- bail bond
- surety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1155 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2025 Thana- Gurupa District- Gaya
======================================================
Rajkumar Chaudhary S/o Basudev Chaudhary R/o Village- Parsatari, P.S.-
Chauparan, District- Hazaribag, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 20-01-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 450 litres of liquor from three different motorcycles.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted that
petitioner is not the owner of any of the seized vehicles and came to
be implicated based on the confessional statement of Bablu in police
custody which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1155 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026
2/2
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, let 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.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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 Gurpa P.S. Case No. 163 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./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 if it is found
that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, it would be presumed
that petitioner had concealed his antecedent before this Court at para
3 of the anticipatory bail application in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if it is found on
verification that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that
event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.