Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Dharo Chaudhary @ Dharmendra ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied because the offence pre‑dated the current Act, a non‑bailable warrant was already issued, and the petition was filed after an inordinate delay.

Summary

The petitioner, Dharo Chaudhary, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 47(A) and 47(F) of the Bihar Excise Act, alleging recovery of 90 litres of liquor and 6,000 kg of Jawa Mahua. He contended that he was not apprehended at the spot, nothing was seized from his possession, and he was not named in the FIR, having been implicated later on secret information. The State opposed the bail, pointing out that the offence dated back to 2014, predating the current version of the Bihar Excise Act, and that a non‑bailable warrant had already been issued. The State also highlighted the petitioner’s prior excise case and the fact that the bail application was filed twelve years after the FIR was lodged. Considering the delay, the existence of a warrant, and the petitioner’s antecedent, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the offence dates prior to the current enactment of the Bihar Excise Act
  • Whether the existence of a non‑bailable warrant and prior excise conviction preclude anticipatory bail
  • Whether the twelve‑year delay in filing the anticipatory bail application defeats the relief

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • excise law
  • non‑bailable warrant
  • delay in filing
  • secret information
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29768 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-682 Year-2014 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP.
                                                     District- Nawada
                 ======================================================
                 Dharo Chaudhary @ Dharmendra Chaudhary S/O Ganauri Chaudhary
                 Resident of village- Chakpar, (Tungi), P.s Hisua, District -Nawada

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :     Mr. Krishna Deo Raj
                 For the Opposite Party/s :     Mr. Pronoti Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   05-05-2026                  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 47(A) and

                   (F) of the Bihar Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 90 liters of liquor along with 6000

                   kgs of Jawa Mahua from a place near bank of a river.

                                4. Learned    counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing

                   was recovered from his conscious possession and is not named

                   in the FIR and came to be implicated in the instant case based
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29768 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026
                                                        2/2




                      on secret information during the course of investigation.

                                   5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

                      anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that case is of the

                      year 2014 i.e. prior to the present Bihar Excise Act coming into

                      force. It is also submitted that from perusal of the order

                      impugned, it would manifest that non-bailable warrant of arrest

                      has already been issued against the petitioner and he has

                      antecedent of one case under the Excise Act. It is also submitted

                      that the instant anticipatory bail application has been filed 12

                      years after the institution of the instant FIR.

                                   6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

                      APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the

                      privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                                   7. Accordingly,         the    instant   anticipatory   bail

                      application stands rejected.



                                                        (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-

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.