Patna High Court
Raja KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court provisionally granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to verification of their criminal antecedents and compliance with bail bond conditions.
Summary
Five petitioners applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Excise Act, alleging that they were not arrested, no liquor was found in their possession, and the only evidence against them was a confessional statement of another accused. The petitioners argued that the amendment to the Excise Act, 2018, abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, directing the petitioners to furnish bail bonds of Rs.5,000 each with two sureties, and conditioned the order on verification of their criminal antecedents. If any of the first four petitioners are found to have a prior case, or the fifth has more than one prior case, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed. The order was made subject to the usual conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the alleged offence involves alleged possession of liquor not found in the petitioners' possession.
- Whether a confessional statement of an accused in police custody can form the basis for granting anticipatory bail.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act removing the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender on bail considerations.
- Whether the petitioners' criminal antecedents affect the confirmation of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12709 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-569 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRA District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Raja Kumar Son of Gobari Mukhiya Resident of Village- Kuarpur Bintoli,
P.S.- Pipra, District- East Champaran
2. Pratima Devi Wife of Gobari Mukhiya Resident of Village- Kuarpur Bintoli,
P.S.- Pipra, District- East Champaran
3. Umesh Mukhiya Son of Jamun Mukhiya Resident of Village- Kuarpur
Bintoli, P.S.- Pipra, District- East Champaran
4. Mukesh Mukhiya Son of Safela Mukhiya Resident of Village- Kuarpur
Bintoli, P.S.- Pipra, District- East Champaran
5. Nawal Mukhiya Son of Gobari Mukhiya Resident of Village- Kuarpur
Bintoli, P.S.- Pipra, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajiv Nayan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 09-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioner nos.1 to 4 are persons with clean antecedent and
petitioner no.5 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act
and petitioner no.2 is a woman and allegation is of recovery of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12709 of 2026(2) dt.09-03-2026
2/3
295 litres of liquor is alleged to have been recovered from the
place of occurrence.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and even alleged
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the
petitioners and they came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of apprehended accused in police
custody, which does not have any evidentiary value. It after
Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the concept of deemed
possession and presumed offender has been done away with.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in
the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each 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 Pipra P. S. Case No.569 of 2025, subject to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12709 of 2026(2) dt.09-03-2026
3/3
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioners shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event,
if it is found that petitioner nos.1 to 4 have antecedent of even
one case and petitioner no.5 has antecedent of more than one
case, then it would be presumed that petitioners for the purposes
of obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed their antecedent
before this Court, in that event, the present provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but if on
verification, it is found that petitioner nos.1 to 4 are persons
with clean antecedent and petitioner no.5 has antecedent of one
case only, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…