Patna High Court
Rajesh ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions.
Summary
Petitioner Rajesh Chaudhary sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022, based on a chowkidar’s allegation that he was involved in the sale of illicit liquor. The petitioner claimed the accusation was false, stemming from personal enmity, and asserted that no liquor was recovered from his possession. The State opposed the bail, relying on the chowkidar’s identification. The court, relying on the precedent of Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar (2019) which allows anticipatory bail despite the bar under Section 76(2) when no offence is made out, held that the petitioner’s claim was credible. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., including surety, regular appearances before police and court, and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioner is likely to be implicated in the offence given the absence of any seizure from his possession and alleged false accusation.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30
- Section 76(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code
- false accusation
- enmity
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29526 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2026 Thana- DINARA District- Rohtas
======================================================
Rajesh Chaudhary S/o Late Malu Chaudhary R/o Village - Sainsad (Saisar),
P.S - Dinara, District - Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravi Shankar Pathak, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Khurshid Anwar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 07-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Dinara P.S. Case No. 91 of 2026 instituted under Section
30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022 lodged on
01.03.2026 by the informant, Asgar Ali.
3. As per the prosecution story, on secret information
about selling of the liquor, the place was raided and 3.42 liters
of country made liquor recovered/seized from the wheat field.
Local ‘Chowkidar’ named this petitioner which led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
repeatedly due to enmity, the ‘Chowkidar’ gave his name which
led to his implication and nothing has been recovered from his
conscious possession.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29526 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
2/4
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in
2019 (2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an
application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar
Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar
under Section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation
made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made
out.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that the
‘Chowkidar’ has named him.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that nothing has been recovered from his conscious
possession, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend
him the privilege of anticipatory bail.
9. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event
of his arrest or surrender before the concerned court within a
period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each in connection with Dinara P.S. Case No.
91 of 2026 to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special
Judge Excise, Court No.1, Rohtas at Chapra subject to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29526 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
3/4
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as
also the other conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/Voter ID/Pan Card
etc.) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the police
station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned
police station every day for one month and later every fortnight
for next six months to mark his attendance and at the end of the
period a certificate be submitted before the Trial Court failing
which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation
of bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29526 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
4/4
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(vi) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…