Patna High Court
Sumit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Sumit Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(iii) of the Bihar Excise Act, where liquor was allegedly recovered from another accused and a motorcycle. He argued that he had no conscious possession of the liquor, was not the vehicle owner, and had no relationship with the other accused, contending that the confession obtained in police custody was inadmissible and that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties, pending verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent by the trial court. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith. The decision was based on the court’s inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case under the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether a confession made by an accused in police custody can be relied upon to deny anticipatory bail.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Excise Act on the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- possession
- confession
- provisional bail
- high court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14530 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-286 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Madhepura
======================================================
Sumit Kumar S/o Sonam Yadav @ Soman Yadav R/o Village -Yadav tola,
Ward no -10, Gamahariya, PS- Gamahariya, Distt.- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Prasad, APP
======================================================
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 Sections 30(a) and
32(iii) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 0.6 liters of liquor from possession of Munna
Kumar and 2.4 liters of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing
was recovered from his conscious possession and is not the
owner of the seized vehicle and he has no concern or relation
with Munna and he came to be implicated based on confessional
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14530 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
2/3
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.
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.
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
Madhepura Excise P.S. Case No. 286 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 even
one case then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the
purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14530 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
3/3
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)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.