Patna High Court
Manejar ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted provisionally, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent and compliance with bail conditions.
Summary
Manejar Chaudhary applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Excise Act, where 50 litres of liquor were recovered from his motorcycle. He argued that he had a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor at the time of seizure, and was unaware that the vehicle would be misused. The State opposed the bail, contending that the vehicle’s ownership implicated him. The Court noted the lack of direct possession, the petitioner’s clean record, and the principle that ownership alone does not constitute participation in the offence. It granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.500 bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent by the trial court. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would be withdrawn; otherwise, it would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for alleged offences under the Excise Act.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence suffices to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 32(3)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- possession
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13165 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2025 Thana- EXCISE SHERGHATI District- Gaya
======================================================
Manejar Chaudhary S/o Late Bhagu Chaudhary R/o Mohalla- Sonar Toli,
Ward No. 19 Sherghati, P.S.- Sherghati, District- Gaya Jee
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Brijmohan Das
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 30(a) and 32(3) 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 50 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 he came to be
implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized
motorcycle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would
use his own vehicle for committing a crime and thus, would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13165 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
2/3
create evidence against himself and hence, would get
implicated. It is further submitted that petitioner was completely
unaware that Sunil would misuse the vehicle in the manner as
alleged as he was also apprehended at the spot.
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
Excise Sherghati P. S. Case No.187 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 even one case, then it
would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13165 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
3/3
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 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.