Patna High Court
Guddu Kumar @ Guddu YadavversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.
Summary
Guddu Kumar sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 95 litres of liquor from an auto. He argued that he had no conscious possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicle, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by Surendra while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The petitioner also highlighted that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, and he maintained a clean criminal antecedent. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs. 500 and two sureties, with the condition that the trial court verify the petitioner’s antecedent; if any prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed, otherwise it will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act where the alleged offender claims no possession and reliance on a custodial confessional statement.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Excise Act eliminates the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender for the purpose of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- Section 482(2)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12479 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-294 Year-2025 Thana- DEV District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Guddu Kumar @ Guddu Yadav S/O Kishori Yadav Village- Kanchanpur, P.S.-
Dev, District- Aurangabad, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Rupa Kumari
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh
======================================================
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 is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 95 litres of liquor from an auto.
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 is not the owner of
the seized vehicle and he came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Surendra in police custody which does
not have any evidentiary value. It is next submitted that after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12479 of 2026(2) dt.09-03-2026
2/3
2018 amendment in the Excise Act, the concept of deemed
possession and presumed offender has been done away with. It
is reiterated and submitted that petitioenr 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, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his 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) 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 Dev P.S. Case No. 294 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 even
one case 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12479 of 2026(2) dt.09-03-2026
3/3
verification if it is found that petitioner is a person with clean
antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…