Arvind Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90148 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-600 Year-2025 Thana- CHANDI District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1.

Arvind Chaudhary Son of Mithilesh Chaudhary R/O Village - Kakaiya, P.S. Nalanda, Dist Nalanda.

2.

Guddu Kumar Son of late Bindeshwar Kewat Resident of Village - Kachalpur, P.S. - Chandi, District-Nalanda 3.

Mahto Chaudhary Son of Late Krishna Chaudhary Resident of Village - Kachalpur, P.S. - Chandi, District-Nalanda 4.

Bitthal Kumar @ Bitthal Chaudhary son of Prakash Chaudhary Resident of Village - Kachalpur, P.S. - Chandi, District-Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Shaheen Begum ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-01-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) of the Excise Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 have antecedent of one case and the allegation is of recovery of 25 litres of liquor from a mango orchard.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90148 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026 2/3

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from their conscious possession and even alleged recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioners and is accessible to public at large and they came to be implicated at the instance of local person, but the name of the person, who disclosed the name of the petitioners is not disclosed in the F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.

6. 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, is directed to be released on provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 Chandi P. S. Case No.600 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

7. The application stands allowed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90148 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026 3/3

8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioners shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event, if it is found that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of more than two cases and petitioner nos.2, 3 4 have antecedent of even one case, then it would be presumed that petitioners for the purposes of obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed their antecedent before this Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of two cases only and petitioner nos.2, 3 4 have antecedent of even one case only, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T