Dinesh Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20560 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2026 Thana- Ramgarh Chowk District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.
Dinesh Chaudhary S/O Jato Chaudhary @ Bhuneshwar Chaudhary R/O Village - Kamta Nagar, P.S- Ramgarh Chowk, Dist- Lakhisarai 2.
Lalita Devi W/O Dinesh Chaaudhary R/O Village - Kamta Nagar, P.SRamgarh Chowk, Dist- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rabi Bhushan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 31-03-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and petitioner no. 2 is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and allegation is of recovery of 15 litres of liquor from the house of the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from their conscious possession. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20560 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026 2/3 submitted that the house in question is a joint family property, as such, 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 in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with. It is next submitted that petitioners came to be implicated at the instance of a lady who came out of the house but did not disclose her name 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 petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, let the petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees One 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 Ramgarh Chowk P.S. Case No. 36 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20560 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026 3/3
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of more than two cases and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of even one case, it would be presumed that petitioners had concealed their 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 no. 1 has antecedent of only two cases and petitioner no. 2 is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T