Chandan ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37488 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-310 Year-2026 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
           1.     Chandan Chaudhary son of Fallu Chaudhary @ Falo Chaudhary Resident of
                  Village - Bhadeja, Ps- Mufassil, Dist- Gaya
           2.    Vijay chaudhary @ Vijay Kumar Son of Chandan Chaudhary Resident of
                 Village - Bhadeja, Ps- Mufassil, Dist- Gaya
           3.    Santosh Chaudhary Son of Rajesh Chaudhary Resident of Village - Bhadeja,
                 Ps- Mufassil, Dist- Gaya

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Ms. Asha Devi
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-06-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of

                   Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

                   petitioner no.1 and 3 have antecedent of three cases under the

                   Excise Act and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of two cases

                   under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 100 litres

                   of liquor from a place near a Mango orchard.                        It is next

                   submitted that petitioners were not arrested from the spot as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37488 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                            2/3




          such nothing was recovered from their conscious possession and

          even alleged recovery is from a place which does not belong to

          the petitioner and they came to be implicated based on

          confessional statement of apprehended accused in police

          custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It is also

          submitted that once an accused is implicated in a case relating to

          excise, the police starts implicating mechanically either through

          chowkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret

          information without holding a proper investigation.

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

          anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

                         5. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the

          event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks

          from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on

          furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand)

          each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction

          of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor

          court     in     connection      with     Excise     Muffasil   P.S.   Case

          No.310/2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under

          Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

                         6. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial court
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37488 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                                         3/3




                       thereafter shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioners

                       and in the event if it is found that petitioner no.1 and 3 have

                       antecedent of more than three cases and petitioner no.2 has

                       antecedent of more than two cases, in that event, it would be

                       presumed that petitioners had concealed their antecedent before

                       this court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall

                       not be confirmed with respect to those petitioners whose

                       criminal antecedent does not tally but if after verification the

                       criminal antecedent as recorded hereinabove tallies with the

                       petitioners in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order

                       shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                 (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-

U        T