Patna High Court

Sanjay Kumar Pandey @ Sanjay ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 20 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The High Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.

Summary

The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Pandey, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act alleging he concealed 35.28 litres of liquor. He argued that the liquor was recovered from a location not belonging to him, that he was not apprehended on the spot, and that the complaint was instigated by a village watchman (chowkidar) with possible ulterior motives. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent by the trial court. The order stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of possession and the circumstances of the seizure justify bail.
Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
excise law
Section 30
Section 482
criminal antecedent
seizure of liquor

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24801 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2026 Thana- DINARA District- Rohtas
                 ======================================================
                 Sanjay Kumar Pandey @ Sanjay Chaudhary S/O Suraj Chaudhary @ Suraj
                 Pandey Resident Of Village- Naua, P.s- Dinara, District Rohtas

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari
                 ======================================================
                 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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of

                   recovery of 35.28 liters of liquor concealed under straw.

                                4. Learned     counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing

                   was recovered from his conscious possession and even alleged

                   recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner

                   and is accessible to villagers at large and he came to be

                   implicated at the instance of Chowkidar with whom he is on an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24801 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
                                            2/3




          inimical term. It is also submitted that if Chowkidar was aware

          of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence then why

          he did not inform the police prior to 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 for the petitioner, 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.

          5000/- (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 Dinara

          P.S. Case No. 41 of 2026 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 more than 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 has
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24801 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                      antecedent of one case only, in that event the provisional

                      anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                        (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…