Patna High Court
Chula Mukhiya @ Ramesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court provisionally granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Chula Mukhiya Ramesh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under Sections 274 and 275 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 for alleged recovery of liquor. He contended that he had no prior criminal record, that the liquor was seized from a public place not in his possession, and that the complaint originated from a hostile watchman. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties, conditioned on verification of the petitioner’s antecedent by the trial court. If any prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if he is found to have a clean record, the bail will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving alleged possession of liquor under Sections 274, 275 B.N.S. and Section 30(a) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of possession at the time of seizure justify anticipatory bail
- Whether the trial court must verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent before confirming the provisional bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 274, 275, 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Section 274 B.N.S.
- Section 275 B.N.S.
- Section 30(a) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- liquor seizure
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25246 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2026 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Chula Mukhiya @ Ramesh Kumar Son of Madhur Mukhiya @ Madho
Mukhiya @ Madhui Mukhiya R/O Vill.- Basantpur, P.S.- Sathi, District- West
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-04-2026 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 Sections 274 and
275 of the BNS, 2023 as well as Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 84 litres of liquor from a place near Sikrahana River
along with 9000 litres of semi prepared liquor which was
destroyed at the spot.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25246 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
2/3
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
and is accessible to villagers at large. It is further submitted that
petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of the
Chawkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is next
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. It is also submitted
that in majority of the cases the police implicate at the instance
of the Chawkidar, local person confessional statement or secret
information without holding a proper investigation of the case.
It is reiterated and submitted that petitioner is a person with
clean antecedent.
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.500/- (Rupees
Five Hundred) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25246 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
3/3
pending/Successor Court in connection with Chanpatia P.S.
Case No. 28 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
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case,
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 is a person with clean antecedent in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…