Patna High Court
AMARJEET KUMAR @ AMARJIT KUMAR YADAVversusTHE 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 antecedent.
Summary
Amarjeet Kumar Yadav sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 for alleged recovery of 131.250 litres of liquor. He contended that he had a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor, did not own the vehicle used, and was implicated solely on a confessional statement of a co‑accused made in police custody, which he argued lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, relying on the alleged offences. The Court examined the submissions, noted the amendment of the Excise Act in 2018 that removed the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender, and considered the petitioner’s clean record. It ordered provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs 500 and two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent by the trial court. The bail will be confirmed if the petitioner is found to have no prior cases; otherwise it may be withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC in view of the alleged offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
- Whether a confessional statement of a co‑accused made in police custody can form a basis for arrest and denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 32(3)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- possession
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- Section 438 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13896 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-148 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Kishanganj
======================================================
AMARJEET KUMAR @ AMARJIT KUMAR YADAV S/O ARUN YADAV
R/O VILL.- DEVRI (WARD NO. 4), P.S.- BARAHRA KOTHI, DIST.-
PURNIA.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
======================================================
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
32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 as well as
(2018 & 2022).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 131.250 litres of liquor from a THAR.
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 Ranjeet
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13896 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
Kumar in police custody which does not have any 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.
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 Special Case No. 149 of 2026 arising out of
Madhya Nisedh P.S. Case No. 148 of 2026, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
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.13896 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
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…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.