Patna High Court
Jitendra Chaudhary @ Jitendra Kumar @ Jitan ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions and a monetary contribution, as no offence under the Act was made out against him.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Chaudhary, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act alleging possession of illicit liquor recovered from a raid. He contended that the liquor was seized from an open place (‘Dera’) and that nothing was found in his conscious possession, arguing that his criminal antecedent alone led to his implication. The State opposed the bail on the ground of his prior record. Relying on the Patna High Court’s Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar, which allowed anticipatory bail despite the bar under Section 76(2) where no offence is made out, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.5,000 contribution to the District Legal Services Authority and standard bail conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The order directed that the petitioner be released on bail if arrested or surrendered within four weeks, upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and compliance with several procedural conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case arising under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act despite the bar in Section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement, given no seizure from his conscious possession, warrants denial of bail on the basis of his criminal antecedent.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 76(2)
- Section 438 CrPC
- criminal antecedent
- liquor seizure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31281 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2025 Thana- BELSAND District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Jitendra Chaudhary @ Jitendra Kumar @ Jitan Chaudhary S/O Tuntun
Chaudhary R/O Village- Basaul, P.S.- Belsand, Dist.- Sitamarhi. Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Uday Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Shakir Ahmad, 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 Belsand P.S. Case No. 217 of 2025 instituted under
Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment
Act lodged on 21.11.2025 by the informant, Ranjeet Mandal.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on secret information, the place was raided and 05 liters of
country made liquor was found/destroyed. Further, upon raid
from ‘Dera’ of the different accused, recovery is/are as follows:
(i) 05 liters of liquor from Santosh
Choudhary;
(ii) 10 liters of liquor Suresh
Choudhary and
(iii) 05 liters of liquor from this
petitioner, Jitendra Choudhary, this
led to the FIR.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31281 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
perusal of the FIR would show that recovery/seizure is from
‘Dera’ which is an open place. So far as the 05 liters part is
concerned, the petitioner has nothing to do with it and only
because he has criminal antecedent, got implicated. Last
submission is that irrespective of the outcome of the present
case and/or accepting the allegation, the petitioner intends to
contribute Rs.5000/- to the District Legal Services Authority,
Sitamarhi for putting up flower pots in the Civil Court Campus
of Sitamarhi judgeship through Demand Draft issued by the
local State Bank of India branch/Any Nationalized Bank.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
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
petitioner has criminal antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31281 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
3/4
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 subject to payment of
Rs.5000/- to the District Legal Services Authority, Sitamarhi for
putting up flower pots in the Civil Court Campus of Sitamarhi
judgeship through Demand Draft issued by the local State Bank
of India branch/Any Nationalized Bank.
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 Belsand P.S. Case No.
217 of 2025 to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special
Judge-2, Sitamarhi subject to the 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31281 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
4/4
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
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…