Patna High Court
Dipesh Kumar Chaudhary @ Dipesh ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail, granting provisional bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.
Summary
Dipesh Kumar Chaudhary was implicated in a case alleging recovery of 675 litres of liquor from a Bolero vehicle, charged under IPC sections 272, 273, 34 and Section 30(a) of the Excise Act. He applied for anticipatory bail, asserting a clean antecedent, lack of ownership of the vehicle, and that the only evidence against him was a confessional statement of a co‑accused, which he claimed had no evidentiary value after the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act that abolished the concept of deemed possession. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC, directing the trial court to verify his antecedent before confirming the bail. If any prior case is found, the bail may be revoked; otherwise, it will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused is admissible as evidence.
- Whether the concept of deemed possession under the Excise Act applies post‑2018 amendment.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 272, 273, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC sections 272 273 34
- Excise Act
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- Section 438 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13154 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2021 Thana- KALUAHI District- Madhubani
======================================================
Dipesh Kumar Chaudhary @ Dipesh Chaudhary S/O Ram Sevak Chaudhari
R/O- Village- Barhi (Baitha Tol), P.S.- Jaynagar, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kaushal Kishore
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Iftekhar Mahmood
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-03-2026 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
Sections 272, 273/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 30(a) of the
Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 675 litres of liquor from a Bolero vehicle.
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 based on
confessional statement of Raushan in police custody, which does
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13154 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
2/3
not have any evidentiary value and after Amendment in the
Excise Act, 2018, the concept of deemed possession and
presumed offender has been done away with.
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.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
Kaluahi P. S. Case No.151 of 2021, 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 even one case, then it
would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining
anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before this Court,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13154 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
3/3
in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall
not be confirmed, but if on verification, 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)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.