Dharo Chaudhary @ Dharmendra Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29768 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-682 Year-2014 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Nawada ====================================================== Dharo Chaudhary @ Dharmendra Chaudhary S/O Ganauri Chaudhary Resident of village- Chakpar, (Tungi), P.s Hisua, District -Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Krishna Deo Raj For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pronoti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-05-2026
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 47(A) and (F) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 90 liters of liquor along with 6000 kgs of Jawa Mahua from a place near bank of a river.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and is not named in the FIR and came to be implicated in the instant case based
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29768 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026 2/2 on secret information during the course of investigation.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that case is of the year 2014 i.e. prior to the present Bihar Excise Act coming into force. It is also submitted that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that non-bailable warrant of arrest has already been issued against the petitioner and he has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act. It is also submitted that the instant anticipatory bail application has been filed 12 years after the institution of the instant FIR.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T