Patna High Court
Munna ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court ordered provisional anticipatory bail for the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of his criminal antecedents.
Summary
Munna Chaudhary sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, where police alleged he was involved in the recovery of 20 litres of liquor from a scooty. He argued that he was not in possession, not the vehicle owner, and the case relied on a confessional statement made by Dinesh in custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value, and that the 2018 amendment to the Act had abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The High Court granted provisional anticipatory bail on condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, confirming bail only if he has exactly two prior cases, otherwise it would be withdrawn. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. to ensure the trial court’s jurisdiction over the matter.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused made in police custody is admissible as evidence.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment removing deemed possession and presumed offender on the bail application.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedents
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28129 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-437 Year-2025 Thana- DARAUNDA District- Siwan
======================================================
Munna Chaudhary S/o Amarjeet Chaudhary Resident of Village- Ragarganj,
P.S.- Daraunda, Dist.- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Adesh Raj
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suman Kumari Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-04-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases and allegation is of recovery
of 20 litres of liquor from a scooty. It is next submitted that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of
the seized vehicle and he came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Dinesh in police custody which does not
have any evidentiary value. It is next submitted that after
amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of
deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away
with.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28129 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
2/2
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, 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.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) 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
Daraunda P.S. Case No.437/2025, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than two
cases, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had
concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if on verification
it is found that petitioner has antecedent of two cases, in that event
the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…