Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Sunil YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Yadav, was implicated in a case alleging recovery of 180 litres of liquor from a vehicle, charged under Sections 30(a), 32(3) and 41(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. He applied for anticipatory bail, contending that he was not arrested at the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicle, and that the confessional statement of an accused in police custody was inadmissible. The State opposed the bail. The Court noted the amendment of the Excise Act in 2018 that abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, and considered the petitioner’s clean antecedent. It granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500, two sureties of the same amount, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent by the trial court. If any antecedent is found, the bail may be revoked; otherwise, the provisional order will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances alleged.
- Whether the confessional statement of an accused in police custody is admissible for the purpose of the bail application.
- Whether the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender still apply after the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- possession
- excise law
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12646 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2024 Thana- Lakho District- Begusarai
======================================================
Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Sunil Yadav S/O Prahalad Yadav R/O Village- Holding
No. 15, Ward No. 12, Nvadhi-Bherva, P.S - Madhupur, Distt. - Deoghar
(Jharkhand).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Asha Kumari, A.P.P.
======================================================
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 Sections 30(a),
32(3) and 41(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
(Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 180 litres of liquor from a car.
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 petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to
be implicated based on the confessional statement of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12646 of 2026(2) dt.09-03-2026
2/3
apprehended accused in police custody, during the course of
investigation, which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law.
It is next 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 reiterated and submitted
that petitioner 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 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 Lakho P.S. Case No. 189 of 2024, 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
it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, it
would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his antecedent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12646 of 2026(2) dt.09-03-2026
3/3
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…