Patna High Court
Anil Choudhary @ Anil ChaudhariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail was granted subject to bond, sureties and verification of antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Anil Choudhary, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act alleging recovery of 14 litres of liquor from his joint family house. He argued that he was not arrested, no liquor was found in his conscious possession, and the property is jointly owned, making it uncertain that he stored the liquor. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations were based on secret information. The Court, noting the lack of arrest and the amendment removing the concept of deemed possession, granted provisional anticipatory bail on condition of a Rs.5,000 bond with two sureties and directed verification of his criminal antecedents. The bail will be confirmed if only one prior case is found, but may be revoked if more than one antecedent is discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act where the accused was not arrested and no possession was established.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438
- Excise Act
- possession
- joint family property
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65132 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2025 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya
======================================================
Anil Choudhary @ Anil Chaudhari S/O Munni Choudhary Resident of
Village- Ramnagar, P.S.- Tekari, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Krishna Prabhat
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jai Narain Thakur
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 07-01-2026 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 one case and allegation is of
recovery of 14 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
in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65132 of 2025(3) dt.07-01-2026
2/3
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 based on secret
information, which is the easiest way to implicate someone.
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.5,000/- (Rupees Five 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 Tekari P. S. Case No.279 of 2025, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
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 one case, then
it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65132 of 2025(3) dt.07-01-2026
3/3
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 one case only, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…