Patna High Court

Mukesh Kumar ChoudharyversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 1 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, to be confirmed if no prior case is found.

Summary

Mukesh Kumar Choudhary was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly possessing 750 ml of liquor recovered from his co‑accused, Manish, and for being the registered owner of a seized motorcycle. The petitioner, claiming a clean antecedent and no conscious possession of the liquor, sought anticipatory bail, arguing that ownership of the vehicle alone should not make him liable. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedent. If any antecedent is discovered, the provisional bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the excise case.
Whether ownership of the seized vehicle implicates the petitioner under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent is a condition for confirming anticipatory bail.

Subjects

anticipatory bail
excise law
vehicle ownership
clean antecedent
Section 30
Section 482
provisional bail

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21497 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2025 Thana- TATARPUR District- Bhagalpur
                 ======================================================
                 Mukesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Uday Choudhary Resident of - Labbu Pasi
                 Lane, Bishari Asthan, Parbatti, P.S - Tatarpur, District - Bhagalpur

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Amrendra Kumar Jha
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   01-04-2026               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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 750 ml of liquor from possession of co-accused

                   Manish and a motorcycle was seized.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   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

                   vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21497 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
                                            2/3




          his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would

          create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,

          it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware

          that Manish would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged,

          who was also apprehended from the spot.

                   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, the petitioner above-named, in the

          event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks

          from today, be released on Provisional anticipatory bail on

          furnishing bail bonds 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 Tatarpur P.S. Case No. 122 of 2025 subject to

          the conditions as laid down under Section 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 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

          seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this

          Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be

          confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21497 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
                                                          3/3




                        person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional

                        anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…