Patna High Court
Ratnesh Chaudhary @ Ratnesh Kumar Chaudhary @ Appu ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail for the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of his criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Ratnesh Chaudhary, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, where liquor was allegedly recovered from premises not belonging to him. He argued that no liquor was found in his possession and that the case was based solely on a confessional statement of another individual, Bablu Kumar, which he claimed lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warranted detention. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.5,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The order stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed, whereas confirmation would follow if only one antecedent is verified.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- The relevance and evidentiary value of a confessional statement made by a third party in police custody.
- The applicability of the concept of deemed possession or presumed offender after the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- Section 30(a)
- Cr.P.C. 438
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11976 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2026 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Ratnesh Chaudhary @ Ratnesh Kumar Chaudhary @ Appu Chaudhary S/O
Bhageran Choudhary R/O Village- Ward No.-01, Pravejabad Gola Bazar, P.S-
Sonepur, Distt.- Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raushan Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 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 (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 103.63 litres of liquor from the
hosue of Bablu Kumar and 78 litres of liqour from a hut near the
canal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11976 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/3
and petitioner has no concern or relation with Bablu Kumar. It is
further submitted that petitioner came to be implicated based on
the confessional statement of Bablu Kumar in police custody
which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law. It
is next submitted that after amendment in the Excise Act in the
year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed
offender has been done away with. It is also submitted that once
an accused is implicated in a case relating to excise the police
start implicating mechanically either at the instance of the
Chawkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret
information without holding a proper investigation of the case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let the petitioner,
above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on provisional
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand) 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 Sonepur P.S. Case
No. 10 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11976 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
3/3
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, 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 more than 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 has antecedent of only one case in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…