Amin Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25536 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2026 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.
Amin Chaudhary Son of Hakim Chaudhary R/O Village- Sitabigha. P.S.- Sasaram (Mufassil), Karwandiya, Distt.- Rohtas 2.
Pinki Devi Wife of Amin Chaudhary R/O Village- Sitabigha. P.S.- Sasaram (Mufassil), Karwandiya, Distt.- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Parmanand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-04-2026
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 Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of one case and petitioner no.2 is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and allegation is of recovery of 5 litres of liquor from house of the petitioner. It is next submitted that petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from their conscious possession and the house in question is a joint family property as such it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25536 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026 2/3 cannot be alleged with certainty that it was 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 and they came to be implicated at the instance of chowkidar with whom petitioner no.1 is on an inimical term. It is also submitted that if chowkidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, 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.5000/- (Rupees five 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 Sasaram (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.55/2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25536 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026 3/3 the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial court thereafter shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioners and in the event if it is found that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of more than one case and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of even one case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioners had concealed their antecedent before this court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed with respect to those petitioners whose criminal antecedent does not tally but if after verification the criminal antecedent as recorded hereinabove tallies with the petitioners in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T