Patna High Court
Pintu Chaudhary @ Pintu ChaudhariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to stipulated conditions.
Summary
Petitioner Pintu Chaudhary sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Amendment Act, 2016, alleging that 25 litres of country-made liquor were recovered from his motorcycle. He contended that he merely owned the motorcycle, which he had lent to a villager, and that no liquor was in his possession. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) when no offence is made out, the petitioner argued for bail. The court examined the facts, noted the absence of possession, and applied the precedent, concluding that anticipatory bail could be granted. Accordingly, the court ordered anticipatory bail with a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and several conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Amendment Act despite the bar under Section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged ownership of the motorcycle, without possession of the liquor, justifies granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 76(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition & Excise Amendment Act
- Section 30
- Section 76
- Section 438
- possession
- liquor seizure
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32208 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2026 Thana- CHANDAUTI District- Gaya
======================================================
Pintu Chaudhary @ Pintu Chaudhari S/o Mundharik Chaudhary @ Mundarik
Chaudhary R/o Village - Navadih Parsanwan, P.S.- Magadh Medical, District
- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pushp Raj Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Umanath Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 13-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Chandauti P.S. Case No.70/2026 for the offence
under sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise
Amendment Act-2016 lodged on 02.03.2026 by the informant,
ASI Bhagirathi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on secret information, the motorcycle was intercepted but
he managed to escape after leaving the motorcycle. Upon
search, there is/was recovery of 25 liters of country made liquor
. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
owns the motorcycle, it was given to a villager little realizing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32208 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
2/4
that he was carrying the liquor.
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.
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, FIR is there, he shall be facing the trial, in that
background, Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
8. 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 Chandauti P.S. Case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32208 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
3/4
No.70/2026 to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special
Judge, Excise-4, Gaya 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
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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32208 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
4/4
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/ S. Prasad
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.