Patna High Court
Buddhi Kumar @ Budhi Kumar @ Budhi Chaudhary @ Buddhi ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Buddhi Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, where 2 litres of liquor were allegedly recovered from his joint family house. He contended that the liquor was not in his conscious possession, that the concept of deemed possession had been abolished after the 2018 amendment, and that the FIR omitted the informant’s identity, rendering the prosecution’s case weak. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, invoking Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. 6. The order further directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, stipulating that if more than two prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed, whereas confirmation would follow if only two prior cases are verified.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 where the alleged liquor was not in the accused's conscious possession.
- Whether the amendment removing the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender affects the bail application.
- Whether the lack of disclosure of the informant in the FIR undermines the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior two cases under the Excise Act justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- criminal antecedent
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23166 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1193 Year-2025 Thana- SAHARSA SADAR District- Saharsa
======================================================
Buddhi Kumar @ Budhi Kumar @ Budhi Chaudhary @ Buddhi Chaudhary
S/o- Late Jibu Chaudhary R/v- Hatiyagachhi PS- Saharsa Sadar Dist- Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 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 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 two cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 2 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
had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23166 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/3
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 local person but then the name of the person who disclosed
the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR which casts
an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner has
not been implicated based on the secret information. It is also
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 appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let 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.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23166 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/3
is pending/Successor Court in connection with Saharsa Sadar
P.S. Case No. 1193 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, 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 two
cases, 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 two cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…