Patna High Court
Subhash Chaudhary @ Subhash KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted subject to the petitioner furnishing bail bonds and the trial court verifying his antecedent record.
Summary
Subhash Chaudhary applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 81.545 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He contended that he was not arrested at the spot, did not have conscious possession of the seized vehicle, and was implicated only by a watchman, while also noting that he has only one prior case. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent by the trial court. It further stipulated that if more than one antecedent case is found, the bail would not be confirmed. The application for anticipatory bail was allowed subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in view of the alleged offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act and his antecedent record
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- liquor seizure
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12654 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2025 Thana- BAIRIYA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Subhash Chaudhary @ Subhash Kumar Son of Bali Chaudhary @ Bali
Mukhiya R/o Vill. - Bairiya Parsauni, Ward No. 9, P.S. - Nautan, Distt. - West
Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gyan Prakash
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sangeeta Sharma
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 09-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of
recovery of 81.545 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of
the seized vehicle and he came to be implicated at the instance
of Chaukidar, but then, it is submitted that if Chaukidar was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12654 of 2026(2) dt.09-03-2026
2/3
aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence,
then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the
present F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the case of the
prosecution.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum 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 Bairiya P. S. Case No.264 of 2025, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is
found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case, then
it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12654 of 2026(2) dt.09-03-2026
3/3
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before
this Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail
order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found
that petitioner has antecedent of one case only, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…