Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14357 (PAT)

Pappu Chaudhary @ Pappu Kumar Chaudhary v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./34886/2026 · 2026-05-20

Praveen Kumar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34886 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2026 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Pappu Chaudhary @ Pappu Kumar Chaudhary Son of Surendra Chaudhary Resident of Village - Mohammadpur Majhauliya Bazar, P.S.- Rajepur, District - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Karandeep Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 20-05-2026 The matter has been taken up today through video conferencing. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 3. The Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Rajepur PS Case No 20 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022. 4. As per the allegation, altogether 10 liters of country made liquor was recovered from the potato and maize field which was situated backside of the shop of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the field from which the alleged recovery has been made does not belong to the petitioner. It has further been submitted Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34886 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026 2/2 that no procedure prescribed under Sections 103 and 105 of the BNSS has been followed. It has also been submitted that the place of seizure is accessible to all. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as he has one previous antecedent of similar nature. 6. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 7. Heard the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, East Champaran at Motihari, in connection with Rajepur PS Case No 20 of 2026 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharitya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. 9. This application stands allowed. M.E.H./- (Praveen Kumar, J) U T