Patna High Court
Muneshwar MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted under Section 482(2) of the CrPC, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents and compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Muneshwar Mahto, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of 405 litres of liquor from his residence. He argued that he was not arrested on the spot, that no liquor was found in his conscious possession, and that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender. He further contended that the house is a joint family property, making it uncertain whether he had knowledge of or control over the liquor, and highlighted procedural lapses in the investigation. The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offence. The Court, applying Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents within six weeks. The order stipulated that if more than two prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the CrPC in a case under the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Excise Act eliminates the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender.
- Whether the joint family nature of the property negates attribution of possession to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- criminal antecedent
- Section 30(a) Bihar Excise Act
- Section 482(2) CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12413 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-723 Year-2025 Thana- DHAKA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Muneshwar Mahto S/o- Kapildev Mahto R/v- Chainpur Dhaka Ps- Dhaka
District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Lakshmi Kant Sharma
======================================================
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 405 litres of liquor from the house of
the petitioner.
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
and presumed offender has been done away with. It is next
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12413 of 2026(2) dt.09-03-2026
2/3
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 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 Dhaka P.S. Case No.
723 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12413 of 2026(2) dt.09-03-2026
3/3
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.