Patna High Court
Raja Chaudhary @ Raja BabuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Raja Chaudhary, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 342 litres of liquor from a seized vehicle. He argued that the ownership report of the vehicle had not been produced despite a court order, and that he was not in possession of the vehicle at the time of seizure, claiming the complaint was motivated by a personal dispute with a watchman. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The High Court, noting the pending ownership report and the petitioner’s claim of innocence, directed that provisional anticipatory bail be granted upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent. The order further stipulated that if more than one antecedent case is found, the bail would not be confirmed, whereas a single antecedent would lead to confirmation of the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC to a person accused of an offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the non-production of the vehicle ownership report justifies granting anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- bail bond
- criminal antecedent
- seized vehicle
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30196 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2024 Thana- PIPRA District- Supaul
======================================================
Raja Chaudhary @ Raja Babu Son of Hare Ram Chaudhary R/o Thumha
Ward No. 11 Thumha, P.S.- Supaul, Dist.- Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Patla Kumari
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
by order dated 13.05.2026, the ownership report of the seized
vehicle was called for from the District Transport Officer, but
the same till date has not been received by this Court.
4. The Court will not wait endlessly for the ownership
report of the seized vehicle.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act
and allegation is of recovery of 342 litres of liquor from a car.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30196 of 2026(3) dt.23-06-2026
2/3
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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 car and he came to be implicated at the instance of
Chaukidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is further
submitted that if Chaukidar was aware of the involvement of the
petitioners in the occurrence, then why he did not inform the
police prior to institution of the present F.I.R., which casts an
aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that
police in majority of cases implicating innocent persons either at
the behest of Chaukidar, local person, secret information and
confessional statement in a mechanical manner without holding
a proper investigation.
7. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30196 of 2026(3) dt.23-06-2026
3/3
Court where the case is pending/successor Court in connection
with Supaul Pipra P. S. Case No.176 of 2024, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
9. The application stands allowed.
10. It is made clear that the learned trial Court
after accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event,
if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one
case, then it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes
of obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent
before this Court, in that event, the present provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but if on
verification, it is found that petitioner has antecedent of only
one case, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.