Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Dharmendra ChauhanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The Court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Dharmendra Chauhan, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (PS Case No. 280 of 2023) under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 concerning the recovery of 375.48 litres of illicit liquor. The petitioner claimed innocence and asserted that no liquor was recovered from his possession, but the prosecution highlighted that he has five pending criminal cases. The State’s Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, emphasizing the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The Court, after considering the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner’s pending cases, declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the case involving alleged illicit liquor possession.

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • illicit liquor
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
  • criminal procedure
  • pending criminal cases

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26878 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-280 Year-2023 Thana- HATHUA District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Dharmendra Chauhan Son of Late Raghu Chauhan Resident of vill -Chitmath
                 PS- Mairwa Dist- Siwan

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       None
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   22-04-2026                          No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

                   However, learned APP for the State is present.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Hathua P.S. Case No. 280 of 2023, dated 01.12.2023,

                   lodged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise

                   (Amendment) Act, 2022, pending before the Court of Additional

                   Sessions Judge-XIII-cum-Spl. Excise Court No. 1, Gopalganj.

                                3. As per the prosecution, total recovery of 375.480

                   litres of illicit liquor has been made, which is the subject matter

                   of the present case.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He further

                   submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of

                   the petitioner. Furthermore, he submits that the criminal
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26878 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
                                                      2/2




                    antecedent of the petitioner is not clean, as five criminal cases

                    are pending against him.

                                 5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

                    bail of the petitioner and submits that five criminal cases are

                    pending against the petitioner.

                                 6. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is

                    not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                    Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is

                    hereby rejected.



                                                                         (Dr. Anshuman, J.)

Aman Kumar/-

U     T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.