Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Anuj KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

Anticipatory bail is granted to petitioner‑1 but denied to petitioner‑2.

Summary

Petitioners Anuj Kumar and Jairam Chaudhary were named accused in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for the alleged possession of 48 litres of illicit liquor seized from two motorcycles. The petitioners contended that no incriminating material was found in their conscious possession, that they were neither drivers nor owners of the vehicles, and that petitioner‑1 had a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail, highlighting that petitioner‑2 had two prior convictions of a similar nature. The Court, after considering the clean record and lack of direct involvement of petitioner‑1, granted anticipatory bail to him subject to a bail‑bond and sureties, while refusing anticipatory bail to petitioner‑2 on account of his criminal antecedents. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused is not in possession of the contraband alleged under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • Whether prior criminal antecedents of a similar nature justify the refusal of anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • illicit liquor
  • excise law
  • criminal antecedent
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21980 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2026 Thana- KUTUMBA District- Aurangabad
                 ======================================================
           1.     Anuj Kumar S/o or C/o Sudarshan Mehta @ Kamlesh Mehta R/o Village -
                  Shivpur, P.S - Nabinagar, District - Aurangabad
           2.    Jairam Chaudhary S/o Late Manoj Chaudhary R/o Village - Shivpur, P.S -
                 Nabinagar, District - Aurangabad

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Ms. Mukul Kumari, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   15-04-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

                   State.

                                2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in Kutumba P. S. Case

                   No. 20 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under

                   Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. As per prosecution case, total 48 litres illicit liquor

                   was recovered from two different seized motorcycles.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no

                   incriminating material has been recovered from conscious

                   possession of the petitioner. Petitioners are neither drivers nor

                   owners of the vehicle in question and they have got no concern

                   with the alleged recovery. Petitioners have been made accused
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21980 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                      in this case only on suspicion. Petitioner no. 1 claims clean

                      antecedent.

                                   5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the bail

                      application and submitted that petitioner no. 2 has got two

                      criminal antecedents of similar nature.

                                   6. Considering criminal antecedents of similar nature,

                      prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no. 2 is refused.

                                   7. Considering nature of accusation and clean

                      antecedent, this anticipatory bail is allowed with regard to

                      petitioner no. 1 and it is ordered that let the above named

                      petitioner no. 1 in the event of his arrest/surrender before the

                      court below within a period of eight weeks from today, be

                      enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten

                      thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

                      satisfaction of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-

                      cum-Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court No. 1, Aurangabad

                      in connection with Kutumba P. S. Case No. 20 of 2026, subject

                      to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya

                      Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.



                                            (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U       T


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

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