Patna High Court
Rohit KumarversusThe 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 criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Rohit Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 56(2)(ii) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly possessing three litres of liquor recovered from a motorcycle. He argued he had no prior criminal record, was not the owner of the vehicle, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by another accused in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The petitioner also contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. 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 antecedent; if any prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed. The order directs confirmation of bail only after the antecedent check confirms a clean record.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the confessional statement of an apprehended accused can form the basis for arrest.
- Whether the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender still exist post‑2018 amendment.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13639 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2024 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Nawada
======================================================
Rohit Kumar Son of Uday Ravidas Resident of Village - Darsan, Ward No.-
11, Police Station - Govindpur, District - Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bipin Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh
======================================================
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 offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 56(2)(ii) 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 3 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
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 apprehended-accused in police custody which does not
have any evidentiary value. 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13639 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/2
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 Excise P.S. Case
No. 136 of 2024, 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 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…