Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra chaudharyversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11988 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2025 Thana- Panchanpur District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra chaudhary Son of Kameshwar Chaudhary
                 Resident of Village - Ramna, P.S. - Sherghati, Dist. - Gayaji.

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Sunil Kumar Yadav
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   24-02-2026               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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 26.25 litres of liquor from the house of Shankar

                   Kumar along with a motorcycle.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was

                   recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be

                   implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized

                   vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11988 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
                                            2/3




          his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would

          create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,

          it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware

          that Karan would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged,

          who was also apprehended from the spot. It is also submitted

          that the house in question is a joint family property as such it

          cannot be alleged with certainty that it was petitioner who had

          kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was

          within knowledge of the petitioner.

                   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 for the petitioner, 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. 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 Panchanpur P.S. Case No. 163 of 2025 subject

          to the conditions as laid down under Section 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 in the
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11988 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
                                                          3/3




                        event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case

                        then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of

                        seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this

                        Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be

                        confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a

                        person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional

                        anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T