Patna High Court
Chunmun KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
Chunmun Kumar sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 44 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018, alleging recovery of 2.7 litres of liquor from his possession. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated, citing his prior cases and asserting that no liquor was actually recovered from him. The State opposed the bail, stating that specific allegations and his apprehension at a check‑post justified denial of bail. The court examined the submissions and found no merit to grant anticipatory bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the excise offences. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Sections 30(a) and 44 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- liquor seizure
- false implication
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25828 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Chunmun Kumar Son of Late Doma Chaudhary Resident of Village- Hathani,
P.S.- Dharmpura, District- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivam Aniket, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 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 30(a) and
44 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases and allegation is of
recovery of 9.525 litres of liquor from Suryansh, 3.600 litres of
liquor from Himanshu and 2.700 litres of liquor from the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that nothing was recovered
from possession of the petitioner and he came to be implicated
because of his antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25828 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/2
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is
specific allegation against the petitioner that 2.700 litres of
liquor was recovered from his possession and he was
apprehended and thereafter he was kept at the check-post along
with other accused but in the mid-night they fled. It is further
submitted that if the privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to
the petitioner that would show a wrong signal.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with
Excise (Bhabua) P.S. Case No. 01 of 2026 pending in the Court
of learned Special Excise Judge-II, Kaimur at Bhabua/Successor
Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…