Patna High Court
NAGENDRA MANJHIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent and compliance with the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Nagendra Manjhi, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act for alleged possession of liquor recovered from a joint family house. He argued that he had no conscious possession, the liquor could belong to other family members, and that the post‑2018 amendment abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering the clean antecedent claim and the factual disputes, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order further directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent; if any case is found, the bail may be revoked, otherwise it will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act where alleged possession is in a joint family house and no conscious possession is established.
- Whether the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender are applicable after the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of a clean antecedent influences the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1176 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-369 Year-2025 Thana- MALAHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
NAGENDRA MANJHI S/o- Vishwanath Manjhi Resident of village-
Ramsiriya Mushar Toli PS- Malahi District-East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aditya Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Rina Sinha, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 20-01-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 25 litres of liquor from the house of Anju and 40
litres of liquor from the house of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted
that the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it
cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who
had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1176 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026
2/3
was within his 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. It is next
submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of
the local person but then the name of the person who disclosed
the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR which casts
an aspersion on the case of the prosecution when petitioner
admittedly is a person with clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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 Malahi
P.S. Case No. 369 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial
court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1176 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026
3/3
it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, it
would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his antecedent
before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in
that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed but if it is found on verification that petitioner is a
person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…