Patna High Court
Indrajit ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of his antecedents and compliance with the stipulated bond conditions.
Summary
Indrajit Chaudhary was implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly possessing 30 litres of liquor recovered from a scooty he owned. The petitioner argued that he had a clean antecedent, was not in actual possession of the liquor, and that his brother had misused the vehicle without his knowledge. The State opposed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. If any antecedent is found, the provisional bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the case registered under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged offence can be a basis for granting bail despite lack of actual possession.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 32(3)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail bond
- excise offence
- possession
- clean antecedent
- vehicle ownership
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44132 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Gaya
======================================================
Indrajit Chaudhary S/O Arjun Chaudhary R/O Village- Kewali Tola Gyani
Bigha, P.S.- Chandauti, Distt.- Gayaji
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Prabhat, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 07-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State Mr. Rabindra Kumar.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a) and
32(3) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 30 litres of liquor from a scooty. It is next
submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such
nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and he
came to be implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the
seized vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would
use his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus
would create evidence against himself and hence would get
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44132 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
2/3
implicated. It is also submitted that the petitioner was
completely unaware that his brother Sanjeet would misuse his
vehicle in the manner as alleged, who also apprehended from
the spot.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) 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 Gayaji Excise P.S. Case No.83 of 2026, subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one
case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had
concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44132 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
3/3
on verification it is found that petitioner is a person with clean
antecedent, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.