Patna High Court
Pankaj Kumar @ Panka KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent and compliance with bail conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Pankaj Kumar, was implicated under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly possessing 319.875 litres of liquor recovered from his house, which he claims is joint family property and that he had no conscious possession. He argued that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, and questioned the credibility of the chowkidar’s information. The State opposed his application for anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner surrender within six weeks, furnish bail bonds and sureties, and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedent. The order stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act where possession is not clearly established.
- Whether the 2018 amendment removing deemed possession and presumed offender concepts affects the petitioner’s liability.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent influences the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the trial court may conditionally confirm anticipatory bail after verifying antecedents.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- possession
- joint family property
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14249 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-765 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Pankaj Kumar @ Panka Kumar S/O Ramlakhan Mahto @ Lakhan Mahto
Resident of Village- Koleri Tola, P.S.- Kako, District- Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bijay Shankar Choubey
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Narsingh Tanti
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-03-2026 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 Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 319.875 litres of liquor from the
house of the petitioner.
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14249 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
2/3
the house or the liquor kept in the house was within knowledge
of the petitioner. 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 and
he came to be implicated at the instance of Chowkidar with
whom he is on an inimical term. It is further submitted that if
the Chowkidar was aware about the involvement of the
petitioner in the occurrence, then why he did not inform the
police prior to institution of the instant FIR, which casts an
aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted
that once an accused is implicated in a case relating to excise,
the police starts implicating mechanically either at the instance
of Chowkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret
information without holding a proper investigation.
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 before the learned trial court within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on Provisional
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14249 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
3/3
pending/successor court in connection with Jehanabad Excise P.S.
Case No. 765 of 2025, 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 more than 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 has
antecedent of one case in that event the provisional anticipatory
bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…