Patna High Court
Rajendra 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 antecedents and compliance with the conditions of Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajendra Manjhi, sought anticipatory bail after learning of a pending case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act alleging recovery of liquor from his house and adjoining residences. He argued that the liquor was not in his conscious possession, that the house is joint family property, and that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warranted arrest. The court granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner surrender within six weeks and furnish bail bonds, subject to verification of his criminal antecedents. It further directed that if more than two prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed, but if only two are found, the provisional order would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the 2018 amendment eliminating deemed possession and presumed offender bars anticipatory bail.
- Whether the joint family nature of the property negates attribution of possession to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
- joint family property
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12399 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-577 Year-2025 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran
======================================================
Rajendra Manjhi S/O Late Adalat Manjhi village - Mira Musehari, P. S -
Muffasil, District - Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Hemant Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Umanath Mishra
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 09-03-2026 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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 95 litres of liquor from the house of
petitioner, 12 litres of liquor from the house of Maina Devi and
9.5 litres of liquor from the house of Radhika Devi.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and after 2018
amendment in the Excise Act, the concept of deemed possession
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12399 of 2026(2) dt.09-03-2026
2/3
and presumed offender has been done away with. 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
who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the
house was within knowledge of the petitioner. It is also
submitted that he came to be implicated at the instance of local
people, 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. It is further submitted
that once an accused is implicated in a case relating to excise,
the police starts implicating mechanically either at the instance
of Chowkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret
information without holding a proper investigation.
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, 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. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) 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 Muffasil P.S. Case No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12399 of 2026(2) dt.09-03-2026
3/3
577 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
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 in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than two
cases then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this
Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner has
antecedent of two cases in that event the provisional anticipatory
bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.