Patna High Court
Jitendra Chaudhary @ Jitend chaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and verification of antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Chaudhary, sought anticipatory bail after the police registered a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging that 106.20 litres of liquor were recovered from his house, which is a joint family property. He argued that he was not arrested at the scene, that no liquor was found in his conscious possession, and that the amended Act had abolished the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender. He further contended that the informant (chawkidar) failed to report his involvement earlier, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.5,000 bond, two sureties, and a six‑week window for surrender, with a condition that the trial court verify his criminal antecedents before confirming the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022
- Whether the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender applies post‑2018 amendment of the Excise Act
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic and Smuggling (BNSS) Act — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1871 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-386 Year-2025 Thana- CHANDAUTI District- Gaya
======================================================
Jitendra Chaudhary @ Jitend Chaudhary Son of Late Rambilash Chaudhary
@ Bilash Chaudhary Resident of Village- Tikari, Sadipur, P.S.- Tekari,
District- Gayaji,
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-01-2026 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 the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 106.20 litres of liquor from the
house of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted
that the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it
cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1871 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
2/3
had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house
was within his knowledge and after amendment in the Excise
Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and
presumed offender has been done away with. It is next
submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of
the Chawkidar but then it is submitted that if the Chawkidar was
aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence
then why he did not inform the police prior to the institution of
the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the
prosecution. It is next submitted that once an accused is
implicated in a case relating to excise the police start
implicating mechanically either at the instance of the
Chawkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret
information without holding a proper investigation of the case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1871 of 2026(2) dt.22-01-2026
3/3
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where
the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Chandauti P.S. Case No. 386 of 2025, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the
BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial
court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if
it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case,
it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner has antecedent of only one case in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…