Patna High Court
Nande Chaudhary @ Nandu ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting provisional bail subject to conditions and verification of antecedent.
Summary
The petitioners, Nande Chaudhary and Kishun Chaudhary, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with a case alleging violation of Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Excise Act, 2018 for the alleged recovery of 35 litres of liquor from their jointly owned house. The petitioners argued that they were not arrested at the scene, that the liquor was not in their conscious possession, and that the amendment to the Excise Act had removed the doctrine of deemed possession. The State opposed the bail, contending that the petitioners were implicated by a watchman’s report. The Court noted the lack of clear evidence of possession, the removal of the deemed‑possession concept, and the questionable role of the watchman, and therefore granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and verification of the petitioners’ criminal antecedent. The order further stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the bail may be revoked, otherwise it will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Excise Act, 2018.
- Whether the alleged possession of liquor by the petitioners can be established in the absence of conscious possession.
- Whether the petitioners' criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87413 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2025 Thana- Mahuli District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
1. Nande Chaudhary @ Nandu Chaudhary S/O Dhobi Chaudhary Resident Of
Village - Bhalua, P.s.- Mahuli, District - Sheikhpura.
2. Kishun Chaudhary S/O Dhobi Chaudhary Resident Of Village - Bhalua, P.s.-
Mahuli, District - Sheikhpura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sheo Nandan Prasad
Mr.Rajnish Kumar
Mr.Sweta Burnwal
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Kishor Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 20-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 30(a), (c) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners have antecedent of one case and the allegation is
of recovery of 35 litres of liquor from the house of the
petitioners.
4. The 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 house in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87413 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
2/3
question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged
with certainty that it were the petitioners, who had kept the
liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within
their knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018,
the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has
been done away with and they came to be implicated at the
instance of Chaukidar, but then, it is 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 petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in
the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) 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 Mahuli P. S. Case No.57 of 2025, subject to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87413 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
3/3
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 petitioners shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event,
if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of more than one
case, then it would be presumed that petitioners for the purposes
of obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed their 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 petitioners have 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…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.