Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar @ Rahul ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail is granted subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, pending verification of the petitioner’s antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly possessing 16 litres of liquor recovered from his joint family house. He argued that the liquor was not in his conscious possession, that the house is a joint family property, and that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warranted detention. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.5,000 bond, two sureties, and compliance with Section 482(2) of the BNSS, directing the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. The order further stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed immediately.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the circumstances alleged.
- Whether the amendment to the Bihar Excise Act eliminating deemed possession affects the bail application.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- possession
- joint family property
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14978 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-298 Year-2025 Thana- HASPURA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Chaudhary Son of Ramdeo Chaudhary Resident of
Village - Karan Bigha, P.S. - Haspura, District- Aurangabad, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binod Kumar Pandey
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Rabindra Kumar.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and
30(c) 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 16 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.14978 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
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. It
is further submitted that he came to be implicated based on
secret information which is the easiest way to implicate
someone 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
pending/successor court in connection with Haspura P.S. Case No.
298 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14978 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
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…