Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Santosh Kumar Chaudhary @ Santosh ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Summary

The petitioners, Santosh Kumar Chaudhary and Vijay Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (Belsand PS Case No.217 of 2025) under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly manufacturing 25 litres of illicit country liquor. They contended they were not present at the alleged site, their names were recorded only on suspicion, and the liquor was not recovered in their conscious possession. The State opposed bail, highlighting that the petitioners have a pending excise case and are already on bail in that matter. The High Court, after hearing both sides, declined to grant anticipatory bail, noting the pending criminal antecedent and the circumstances of the case. However, the Court directed the trial court to entertain a regular bail application if the petitioners surrender within six weeks, to be decided on its merits.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act given the alleged facts and their pending criminal case.

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • illicit liquor
  • excise offence
  • criminal antecedent
  • regular bail

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15869 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2025 Thana- BELSAND District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
           1.     Santosh Kumar Chaudhary @ Santosh Chaudhary S/o- Late Shivdeep
                  Chaudhary Resident of village- Basaul ward no 04, Ps- Belsand District-
                  Sitamarhi Bihar
           2.    Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Chaudhary S/o- Late Saheb Chaudhary Resident of
                 village- Basaul ward no 04, Ps- Belsand District- Sitamarhi Bihar

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Raju Kumar, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Sanjay Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   25-03-2026                      Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and

                   Learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in

                   connection with Belsand P.S. Case No.217 of 2025 dated

                   21.11.2025, for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of

                   the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act pending before the Court

                   of Special Judge, Exclusive Excise Court-2, Sitamarhi.

                                3. As per the prosecution, the total recovery of 25

                   litres of illicit country liquor have alleged to be made, which is

                   the subject matter of the present case.

                                4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the

                   petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15869 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
                                                       2/2




                     Counsel also submits that petitioners were not present on the

                     place of occurrence and their name has been transpired only on

                     suspicion. Counsel further submits that criminal antecedent of

                     the petitioners is not clean as there is one criminal case (relating

                     to excise matter) pending against them in which they are on bail.

                                  5. Counsel further submits that the recovery has not

                     been made in conscious possession of the petitioners.

                                  6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

                     bail of the petitioner and submits that criminal antecedent of the

                     petitioner is not clean as there is one criminal case pending

                     against them and this aspect must be taken into consideration.

                                  7. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is

                     not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the

                     prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

                                  8. However, trial court is directed to consider the

                     regular bail application of the petitioners, if they surrender

                     within 6 weeks from today and prays for regular bail, then trial

                     court shall pass order on merit without being prejudice of the

                     present order.



                                                             (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.