Patna High Court
Arun ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to verification of their criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioners, Arun Chaudhary and Nanki Chaudhary, feared arrest in a case registered under Sections 30(a), 30(c) and 30(d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly recovering 95 litres of liquor and 500 litres of Jawa Mahua solution from a bamboo orchard that was later destroyed. They contended that they have clean antecedents, were not in possession of the seized liquor, do not own the orchard, and that the only evidence against them is a confessional statement made by Ranjit Kumar while in police custody, which they argued lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed their request for anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted the petitioners provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that they furnish bail bonds of Rs.500 each with two sureties, and that the trial court verify their criminal antecedent within six weeks. If any prior case is discovered, the provisional bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed immediately. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused made in police custody can be the sole basis for denying anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioners’ alleged lack of ownership and possession of the seized liquor affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Section 482 BNSS
- liquor seizure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7340 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2026 Thana- PAUTHU District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Arun Chaudhary Son of Arjun Chaudhary @ Arjan Chaudhary Resident of
Village - Bhetaniya Makhmulpur PS - Paithu District - Aurangabad Bihar
2. Nanki Chaudhary son of Bhagavan Chaudhari @ Bhagavan Chaudhary
Resident of Village - Bhetaniya Makhmulpur PS - Paithu District -
Aurangabad Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Rupa Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a),
30(c) and 30(d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 95 litres of liquor from a bamboo orchard along
with 500 litres of Jawa Mahua Solution which was destroyed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7340 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
2/3
petitioners and is accessible to villagers at large. It is further
submitted that petitioners are not the owner of the bamboo
orchard and came to be implicated based on the confessional
statement of Ranjit Kumar in police custody which does not
have any evidentiary value in the eye of law.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, let the petitioners above-named, in
the event of their 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)
each 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 Pauthu P.S. Case No. 03 of 2026,
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 petitioners and
if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of even one case, it
would be presumed that petitioners had concealed their
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7340 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
3/3
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…