Patna High Court
Dhai Chaudhary @ Dai Chaudhary @ Vineshar Chaudhary @ Vineshwar ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bail bond, sureties and verification of antecedent, under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhai Chaudhary, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 for alleged possession of five litres of liquor and ten kilograms of Mahua flower from his own house and that of another person. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, that the property is a joint family house and that nothing was recovered from his conscious possession at the time of arrest. The State opposed his prayer for anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.500 bail bond, two sureties of the same amount, and subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent by the trial court. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith. The decision was based on the provisions of Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case of alleged possession under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of conscious possession justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent can affect the confirmation of the provisional anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- possession of liquor
- Mahua flower
- clean antecedent
- joint family property
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67400 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-800 Year-2018 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna
======================================================
Dhai Chaudhary @ Dai Chaudhary @ Vineshar Chaudhary @ Vineshwar
Chaudhary S/o Mahesh Chaudhary Resident of Sanghat Par, Masaurhi, PS-
Masaurhi, Dist.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Barun Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 07-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of five litres of liquor along with ten Kg. of Mahua
flower from the house of Pheku Chaudhary and five litres of
liquor along with ten Kg. of Mahua flower from the house of the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67400 of 2025(3) dt.07-01-2026
2/3
that the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it
cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who
had kept the liquor and Mahua flower in the house or the liquor
and Mahua flower kept in the house was within the knowledge
of the petitioner. It is next submitted that petitioner came to be
implicated based on the secret information which is the easiest
way to implicate someone without holding a proper
investigation of the case. It is reiterated and submitted that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court
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 Special
Case No. 11250 of 2018 arising out of Masaurhi P.S. Case No.
800 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67400 of 2025(3) dt.07-01-2026
3/3
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial
court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if
it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, it
would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his antecedent
before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in
that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed but if it is found on verification that petitioner is a
person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…