Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Kumar MallikversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedents and compliance with the conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Kumar, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly recovering 130 litres of liquor from a sack, although the liquor was not found in his immediate possession. The allegation rests on a confessional statement made by a co-accused, Jitu, while in police custody, which the petitioner contended lacks evidentiary value. He argued that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, and he has a clean criminal record. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, ordered provisional anticipatory bail subject to a modest bond and sureties, and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedents before confirming the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused made in police custody can be the basis for arrest.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act eliminates the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13361 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-288 Year-2025 Thana- SARAI District- Vaishali
======================================================
Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Kumar Mallik Son of Randhir Mallik R/o Village -
Matiyara Tok, P.S. - Sarai District - Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Bela Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Meena Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-03-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 130 litres of liquor from a sack. It is next submitted
that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing
was recovered from his conscious possession and even alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
and he has no concern with the sack and came to be implicated
based on the confessional statement of Jitu in police custody
which does not have any evidentiary value. It also submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13361 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
2/3
that after amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the
concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been
done away with.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. 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 Sarai P.S. Case No.288/2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one
case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had
concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if
on verification it is found that petitioner is a person with clean
antecedent, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13361 of 2026(2) dt.10-03-2026
3/3
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.