Patna High Court
Vikash Kumar @ Lalu MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to conditions and verification of criminal antecedents.
Summary
Vikash Kumar and Usha Devi sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case registered under Sections 126, 115(2), 132, 121(1), 121(2), 127(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022 for allegedly possessing 1.125 litres of liquor at a joint‑family house. The petitioners argued that they have clean antecedents, that the house is a joint family property making possession uncertain, and that the concept of deemed possession was abolished by the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, ordered provisional anticipatory bail subject to a modest bond, two sureties, and verification of any criminal antecedents, invoking Section 482(2). The order further stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail may be withdrawn, otherwise it will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail despite the serious narcotic and excise offences alleged against them
- Whether the concept of deemed possession applies to the facts of the case
- Whether the joint‑family nature of the property negates the presumption of possession
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 115(2), 121(1), 121(2), 126, 127(2), 132
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- narcotic offences
- excise law
- joint family property
- presumption of possession
- Bihar law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12217 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-319 Year-2025 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Vikash Kumar @ Lalu Mahto Son of Upendra Mahto Resident of Village-
Harlochanpur Sukki, Post- Sukki, P.S.- Patepur, District- Vaishali, Bihar-
843114
2. Usha Devi W/o Upendra Mahto @ Upen Mahto Resident of Village-
Harlochanpur Sukki, Post- Sukki, P.S.- Patepur, District- Vaishali, Bihar-
843114
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saket Kumar Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 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 Sections 126,
115(2), 132, 121(1), 121(2), 127(2) of the BNS, 2023 and
Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner no.2
is a woman and allegation is of recovery of 1.125 litres of liquor
from house of petitioner no.1. It is next submitted that petitioner
no.1 was apprehended by the police but then people gathered at
the place of occurrence and created ruckus and freed petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12217 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/3
no.1 and petitioner no.2 was identified amongst the persons who
created ruckus. It is next submitted that the house in question is
a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged with
certainty that it was petitioner no.1, who had kept the liquor in
the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his
knowledge. It is also submitted that 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 no.1 was not arrested from the place of
occurrence but then the presence of police attracted the
villagers, who came out of inquisitiveness at the place of
occurrence and petitioner no.2 who is mother of petitioner no.1
also came to be implicated in a mechanical manner.
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 within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on provisional anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12217 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
3/3
in connection with Patepur (Harlochanpur) P.S. Case
No.319/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial court
thereafter shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioners
and in the event if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of
even 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 with respect to those petitioners whose criminal
antecedent does not tally but if after verification the criminal
antecedent as recorded hereinabove tallies with the petitioners in
that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…