Patna High Court
Manoj ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Manoj Chaudhary applied for anticipatory bail after the police registered a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging that 5 litres of liquor were recovered from a motorcycle he was riding. The petitioner argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not arrested at the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, and was implicated only through a confessional statement of another accused taken in police custody, which he claimed lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warrant detention. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent; if any prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed. The order is subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
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 the confessional statement of a co‑accused taken in police custody is admissible for granting anticipatory bail.
- Whether lack of conscious possession and non‑ownership of the vehicle justify anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- confessional statement
- conscious possession
- bail bond
- surety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9937 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-304 Year-2025 Thana- KOPA District- Saran
======================================================
Manoj Chaudhary S/o Late Raghunath Choudhary R/o Village - Kopa, P.S -
Kopa, District - Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-02-2026 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 is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 5 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
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
petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to be
implicated based on the confessional statement of apprehended
accused 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9937 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
2/2
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.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 Kopa P.S. Case No. 304
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 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…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.