Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Tarkeshwar Chaudhary @ BalkeshwarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedent and compliance with bail conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Tarkeshwar Chaudhary, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, alleging recovery of liquor and Mahua from his house and another's house. He argued that he was not arrested on the spot, no liquor was found in his conscious possession, and the property is a joint family house, making it uncertain that he stored the liquor. He further contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, and that his implication was based on secret information. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS, directing verification of his criminal antecedent to confirm the order.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in view of the alleged offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • Whether the amendment removing deemed possession affects the bail consideration
  • Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent warrants denial of bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Section 30(a)
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • deemed possession
  • joint family property
  • criminal antecedent
  • provisional bail
  • CrPC

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2391 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2025 Thana- RASULPUR District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Tarkeshwar Chaudhary @ Balkeshwar Son of Late Rama Chaudhary Resident
                 of Benaut, P.S.- Rasulpur, District- Saran
                                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   30-01-2026                  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 Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of

                   recovery of 20 litres of liquor along with 500 litres of Mahua

                   Pass from the house of the petitioner and 100 litres of Mahua

                   Pass from the house of Vakil Chaudhary.

                                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.2391 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
                                            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 based on the

          secret information which is the easiest way to implicate

          someone.

                       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

          amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where

          the case is pending/successor court in connection with Rasulpur

          P.S. Case No. 187 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,
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2391 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                     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.

                                  8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner

                     based on instruction submits that petitioner undertakes to

                     deposit an amount of Rs.2,500/- with the Advocate Association

                     of the Patna High Court within a period of two weeks from

                     today.


                                                                         (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

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.