Patna High Court
Jitendra ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Chaudhary, applied for anticipatory bail after learning that a case had been registered against him under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 for allegedly possessing five litres of liquor recovered from his house. He contended that the liquor was located in a joint family property and that he had no conscious possession, arguing that the concept of deemed possession was removed by the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act. The petitioner also highlighted his antecedent of three prior cases under the Excise Act and claimed that the complaint was motivated by an inimical relationship with the watchman who lodged the FIR. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, ordered provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.15,000 with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, stating that the bail would be confirmed only if the antecedent does not exceed three cases. If more than three cases are found, the provisional bail would not be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving alleged possession of liquor under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the removal of the concept of deemed possession by the 2018 amendment affects the petitioner’s liability.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior three cases under the Excise Act justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- prior convictions
- Cr.P.C. 438
- Bihar Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24402 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2026 Thana- JANTA BAZAR District- Saran
======================================================
Jitendra Chaudhary S/o- Chandra Chaudhary R/v- Shobhipur PS - Janta Bazar
Dist- 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. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 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 three cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 5 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.24402 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
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 Chawkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is also
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.
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.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen 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 Janta Bazar P.S.
Case No. 65 of 2026, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24402 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
3/3
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than
three 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 three cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…