Mithlesh Chaudhari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6284 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-291 Year-2025 Thana- JAMHOR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Mithlesh Chaudhari S/o Late Faguni Chaudhary R/o Village- Kuramha Tola, P.S.- Jamhore, Distt.- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Mukul Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-02-2026

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 offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 67 litres of liquor from the house of the petitioner and Durga Chaudhary.

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 cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6284 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026 2/3 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 at the instance of the Chawkidar but then it is submitted that if the 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, when petitioner admittedly is a person with clean antecedent.

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 Jamhore P.S. Case No. 291 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6284 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026 3/3 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.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner based on instruction submits that petitioner undertakes to deposit an amount of Rs.1,500/- with the Advocate Association of the Patna High Court within a period of two weeks from today.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T