Patna High Court
Kanhaiya Chaudhari @ Kanhaiya Kumar ChoudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to a cash bond and specific conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Kanhaiya Chaudhari, sought anticipatory bail in a case involving the alleged seizure of 95.580 litres of foreign liquor under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He contended that the liquor was not recovered from his possession, that he was neither the owner nor driver of the e‑rickshaw from which it was seized, and that his name was linked to the case only through a co‑accused's confession. The prosecution opposed bail, invoking Section 76(2) of the same Act and citing the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents, though he was already on bail for those matters. The court, relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar (2019 PLJR 1089), noted procedural irregularities in the seizure (non‑compliance with Sections 103 and 105 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) and granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 and several conditions. The order directed the lower court to release the petitioner if arrested within thirty days, subject to compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the CrPC/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the procedural lapses in the seizure (non‑compliance with Sections 103 and 105 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) justify granting bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 103, 105, 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 76(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- seizure procedure
- confessional statement
- e‑rickshaw
- criminal antecedent
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25444 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2026 Thana- BHAGWAN BAZAR District- Saran
======================================================
Kanhaiya Chaudhari @ Kanhaiya Kumar Choudhary S/O Janak Chaudhary
R/o Village - Sandha Dhala, P.S.- Mufassil (Muffasil), District- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ashad, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Bhagwan Bazar P.S. Case No. 58 of 2026, F.I.R
dated 25.01.2026 registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Recovery is of 95.580 liters of foreign liquor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in
the F.I.R is false and fabricated. He further submits that it
appears from the F.I.R that nothing has been recovered from the
conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25444 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
2/4
been made from e-rickshaw in question and petitioner is neither
the owner nor the driver of the e-rickshaw in question. The
name of the petitioner transpired on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused, namely, Aman Kumar. From bare
perusal of the seizure list, it appears that sizure list witnesses are
police personnel so there is non-compliance with mandatory
procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 103 and 105 of
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. No case, whatsoever, would
be made out against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of
the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the pre-
arrest bail would not be maintainable. She further submits that
petitioner carries two criminal antecedents other than the present
one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail
application that the petitioner is on bail in the said matters.
6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full
Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar
reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid
down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25444 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
3/4
behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant
of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of
counsel for the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the petitioner,
above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
court below within a period of thirty days from the date of
receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond
of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional
Session Judge-cum-Exclusive Special Court, Excise Act-I,
Saran at Chapra in connection with Bhagwan Bazar P.S. Case
No. 58 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section
482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other
following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25444 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
4/4
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.