Patna High Court
Guddu Kumar Mahto @ Guddu MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court provisionally granted anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.
Summary
Guddu Kumar Mahto sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of 15 litres of liquor near his kiosk. He argued that he had a clean antecedent, the liquor was not in his conscious possession, and the only evidence was a confessional statement of Jitendra Kumar made in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The petitioner also contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.500 bond with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., directing the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent before confirming the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether a confessional statement made by a co-accused in police custody is admissible as evidence.
- Whether the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender applies after the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16495 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2026 Thana- KASBA District- Purnia
======================================================
Guddu Kumar Mahto @ Guddu Mahto S/O Sri Harihar Mahto Resident of
Vill.- Dogachhi, P.S- Kasba, Dist- Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P.
======================================================
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.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 15 litres of liquor from a place near the kiosk of the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
but then is adjacent to his kiosk. It is further submitted that
petitioner came to be implicated based on the confessional
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16495 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
statement of Jitendra 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 Kasba P.S. Case No. 10 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
before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16495 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
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…