Patna High Court
Dharmendra Sonkar @ Dharmendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail for the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedents and compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Dharmendra Sonkar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 62 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly possessing 14.25 litres of liquor recovered from the house of Nagina Kumar, a joint family property. He argued that he had no direct possession, the liquor was not found on his person, and the allegation rested on his father’s confession, which he claimed was inadmissible as a police‑custody statement. The State opposed the bail, contending the petitioner was implicated as a deemed possessor under the amended law. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a modest bond, two sureties, and a condition that the trial court verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. If any antecedent is discovered, the bail may be revoked; otherwise, the provisional order will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the excise case.
- Whether the concept of deemed possession applies post‑2018 amendment.
- Whether a confession made in police custody is admissible as evidence.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- joint family property
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13598 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Rohtas
======================================================
Dharmendra Sonkar @ Dharmendra Kumar S/o Late Raj Kumar Sonkar
Resident of Mohalla- Mubarakgnj, P.S- Sasaram Town, District- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Kant
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 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 Sections 30(a) and
62 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 14.25 litres of liquor from the house of Nagina
Kumar. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested
from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious
possession and 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 his knowledge and after amendment in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13598 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession
and presumed offender has been done away with and he came to
be implicated based on the fact that he is son of Nagina and his
father was made to confess the name of the petitioner. It is also
submitted that confessional statement in police custody does not
have any evidentiary value.
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 Excise Case No.274/2026 read with Sasaram
Excise P.S. Case No.49/2026, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13598 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/3
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
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.