Jacky Dhangad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80498 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2025 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Jacky Dhangad S/o Late Dukhan Dhangad R/o Laghunaha, Dhangad Toli, ward no. 10, P.S. - Chanpatiya, Distt.- West Champaran 2.
Arun Dhangad @ Jacky Kumar S/o Late Dukhan Dhangad R/o Laghunaha, Dhangad Toli, ward no. 10, P.S. - Chanpatiya, Distt.- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Gyan Prakash For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-12-2025
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.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is a person with clean antecedent and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of one case and allegation is of recovery of 5 litres of liquor from the house of petitioner no.1, 14 litres of liquor from the house of petitioner no.2 and 26 litres of liquor from the house of Sanjay. It is next submitted that petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80498 of 2025(2) dt.10-12-2025 2/3 from their conscious possession and the house in question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it were petitioners, who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within their knowledge and they came to be implicated at the instance of chowkidar but then it is submitted that if chowkidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioners 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 before the learned Court below 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 Chanpatiya P.S. Case No.218/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80498 of 2025(2) dt.10-12-2025 3/3 shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioners and in the event if it is found that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of even one case and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of more than 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 but if on verification it is found that petitioner no.1 is a person with clean antecedent and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of one case, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T