Patna High Court
Pradip ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedent and compliance with bail conditions.
Summary
Petitioner Pradip Chaudhary was implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly possessing 25 litres of liquor and 180 litres of fermented Jawa Mahua recovered from his house, which is a joint family property. He applied for anticipatory bail, arguing he has a clean antecedent, the liquor was not in his conscious possession, and the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concept of deemed possession. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. If any antecedent is found, the bail may be cancelled; otherwise, the bail will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in view of the alleged possession of liquor.
- Whether the concept of deemed possession applies after the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the joint family nature of the property affects the petitioner’s liability.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- criminal antecedent
- Section 438
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89214 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-248 Year-2025 Thana- EXCISE SHERGHATI District- Gaya
======================================================
Pradip Chaudhary S/O Ramlagan Chaudhary Resident of Village- Jamirganj,
P.S.- Sherghati, District- Gaya,
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Shakir Ahmad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 05-01-2026 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 offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and
32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 25 litres of liquor from the house of the petitioner
along with 180 litres of fermented Jawa Mahua which was
destroyed and other recoveries from the house of co-accused as
recorded in the FIR.
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
that the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89214 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
2/3
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 knowledge and after amendment in the Excise
Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and
presumed offender has been done away with. 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.
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 Excise
Sherghati P.S. Case No. 248 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial
court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89214 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
3/3
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…