Patna High Court
Bablu ChauhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court provisionally granted anticipatory bail subject to bail bonds, sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Summary
Bablu Chauhan sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of liquor from locations not belonging to him. The petition relied on the claim that no liquor was found in his possession and the only evidence was a confessional statement made by Amit Patel while in police custody, which the petitioner argued lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, conditioning it on a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order further stipulated that if more than one antecedent case is found, the bail would not be confirmed, whereas confirmation would follow if only one antecedent is verified.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody is admissible as evidence for arrest.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic and Substance (BNSS) Act — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- liquor prohibition
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
- Section 30(a)
- Cr.P.C. 438
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7328 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-290 Year-2025 Thana- RAGHUNATHPUR District- Siwan
======================================================
Bablu Chauhan S/O Khublal Chauhan Resident of Village- Mirzapur, P.S-
Raghunathpur, Distt.- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Shrivastwa, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-02-2026 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 (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of recovery of
44 litres of liquor from a place near orchard of Bijay Bin and 119
litres of liquor from a bush near Pokhari Ghat.
4. 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 alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner and
he came to be implicated based on the confessional statement of Amit
Patel in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value in
the eye of law.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7328 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
2/2
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 within a period of six weeks from today, be
released on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds 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 Raghunathpur P.S.
Case No. 290 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.
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 more than 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 has antecedent of only one case
in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…