Patna High Court
Ajay ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his criminal antecedents and compliance with the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajay Manjhi, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged possession of 4 litres of liquor and three bottles of Kingfisher beer found in a house that is part of a joint family property. He argued that he was not arrested at the scene, that the liquor was not in his conscious possession, and that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, contending that the prosecution’s case was weak and that the informant (the chowkidar) had not reported the matter earlier. The State opposed the bail. The Court, applying Section 482(2) of the BNSS, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and conditioned the confirmation of bail on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, particularly that he does not have more than five prior cases.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Excise Act eliminates the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender for the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- Section 30
- Bihar Excise Act
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- joint family property
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.163 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-398 Year-2025 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Ajay Manjhi S/O Late Banu Manjhi Resident of Village- Harsidhi Mushahari
Tola, Ward No 4, Police Station- Harsidhi, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Karandeep Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Parmanand Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-01-2026 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 five case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 4 litres of liquor along with 3 pieces
of kingfisher beer 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 after 2018
amendment in the Excise Act, the concept of deemed possession
and presumed offender has been done away with. It is next
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.163 of 2026(2) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
submitted that 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 or beer in the house or the liquor or beer
kept in the house was within knowledge of the petitioner and he
came to be implicated at the instance of Chowkidar but then it is
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. 25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty-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.163 of 2026(2) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
pending/successor court in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case No.
398 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 five
cases 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 five cases, in that event the provisional anticipatory
bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…