Patna High Court
Pintu Chaudhary @ Pintu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and compliance with bail conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Pintu Chaudhary, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2022, alleging recovery of 30 litres of liquor from a public area not in his possession. He argued that the informant, a chowkidar with whom he had a hostile relationship, had no reason to delay reporting the incident, casting doubt on the FIR’s credibility. The petitioner also highlighted his four prior excise cases, contending that the police had mechanically implicated him without proper investigation. The court, after hearing both sides, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.20,000 with two sureties and subject to verification of his antecedents. It directed that if the verification shows more than four prior cases, the bail would not be confirmed; if exactly four, the bail would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2022.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior four cases under the Excise Act affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the FIR is valid given the lack of possession and the questionable informant.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- liquor seizure
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482(2)
- public place
- informant credibility
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12080 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-387 Year-2025 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas
======================================================
Pintu Chaudhary @ Pintu Kumar S/o Prakash Chaudhary @ Paras Chaudhary
Resident Of Village- Sitabigha, Ps- Sasaram Mufassil, Dist- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Pushpa Sinha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 30-03-2026 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
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of four cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 30 litres of liquor from a place near
kau river. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested
from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious
possession and even alleged recovery is from a place which
does not belong to the petitioner and is accessible to villagers at
large and he came to be implicated at the instance of chowkidar
with whom he is on an inimical term. It is also submitted that if
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12080 of 2026(3) dt.30-03-2026
2/3
chowkidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the
occurrence then why he did not inform the police prior to
institution of the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the
case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that once an
accused is implicated in a case relating to excise, the police
starts implicating mechanically either through chowkidar, local
person, confessional statement or secret information without
holding a proper investigation. It is also submitted that
inadvertently at Para-3 of the anticipatory bail application it has
been pleaded that petitioner has been apprehended but then the
same has been rectified by filing a supplementary affidavit,
wherein it is recorded that petitioner has not been apprehended.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. 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.20.000/- (Rupees Twenty 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 Sasaram Muffasil P.S. Case No.387/2025,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12080 of 2026(3) dt.30-03-2026
3/3
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of
the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than
four cases, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner
had concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if
on verification it is found that petitioner has antecedent of four
cases, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall
be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…