Patna High Court
Saryu Chaudhary @ Sirju Chaudhary @ Siraju ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted in the present circumstances, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents and compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Saryu Chaudhary, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(A) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of ten litres of liquor from his residence. The petitioner argued that he was not arrested, the liquor was located in a joint‑family house and there was no proof of his personal possession, and that the chaukidar who lodged the complaint was an inimical party. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs 15,000 with two sureties, a condition that the trial court verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, and a requirement to deposit Rs 5,000 with the High Court Legal Services Committee. The order also stipulated that if more than three prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under Section 30(A) of the Excise Act where the alleged liquor was recovered from a joint‑family house and no personal possession is established.
- Whether the amendment to the Excise Act, 2018, eliminating the concept of deemed possession, affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(A)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- possession
- joint family property
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5649 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-346 Year-2025 Thana- CHANDAUTI District- Gaya
======================================================
Saryu Chaudhary @ Sirju Chaudhary @ Siraju Chaudhary S/o Gora
Chaudhary R/o Village - Kujap, P.S - Chandauti, District - Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Sukriti Kumari
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Meena Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-02-2026 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
the petitioner has antecedent of three cases out of which one
case is under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 10
litres of liquor from house of the petitioner.
4. 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 even the house in
question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged
with certainty that it was the petitioner, who had kept the liquor
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5649 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
2/3
in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his
knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the
concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been
done away with 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.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. 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.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) 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 Chandauti P. S. Case No.346 of 2025, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5649 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
3/3
8. 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 three cases,
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 three cases only, in that event,
the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
9. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner based on instruction submits that
petitioner undertakes to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- with
Patna High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna within a
period of two weeks from today.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…