Patna High Court
Chandan MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedent, under Section 438(2) CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandan Mahto, feared arrest in a case alleging recovery of 55 litres of liquor from a bush behind his house, an offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. He argued he had a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor, and the alleged recovery occurred on land not owned by him, implicating the chawkidar’s suspicion. The State opposed his prayer for anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.500, two sureties of the same amount, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent within six weeks. If any antecedent is found, the bail may be cancelled; if none, the provisional order will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438(2) CrPC in the context of alleged violation of Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of possession and clean antecedent justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- liquor seizure
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90532 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-203 Year-2025 Thana- PANDAUL District- Madhubani
======================================================
Chandan Mahto S/o- Late Rudal Mahto R/o Vill-Gangauli P.S - Pandaul Dist-
Madhunani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-01-2026 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 (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 55 litres of liquor from a bush behind 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 and even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
and but then is adjacent to his house, as such, he came to be
implicated at the instance of the Chawkidar based on suspicion
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90532 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
2/3
but then it is submitted that if Chawkidar was aware of the
involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did
not inform the police prior to the institution of the instant FIR
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
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 Pandaul
P.S. Case No. 203 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90532 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
3/3
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…