Patna High Court
Dharmendra YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail for the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and verification of his criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Dharmendra Yadav, feared arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022, alleging recovery of 85.5 litres of liquor from a truck. He argued that he was not arrested on the spot, had no conscious possession, was not the truck’s owner, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement of a co‑accused made in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. He further contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, confirming bail only if he has a single prior case. The order is conditional and may be withdrawn if more than one antecedent is found.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused made in police custody can form the basis for the charge.
- Whether the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, removed by the 2018 amendment, apply to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482(2) CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16542 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2026 Thana- GRIYAK District- Nalanda
======================================================
Dharmendra Yadav Son of Preman Yadav Resident of village- Shobh Nagar,
ps- Giryak, Dist- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Ranjan
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Prasad
======================================================
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 Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of recovery
of 85.5 litres of liquor from a truck. It is next submitted that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of
the seized truck and he came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Sunny in police custody which does not
have any evidentiary value. It is also 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16542 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
2/2
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, 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.5000/- (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 Griyak P.S.
Case No.32/2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one
case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had
concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if on verification
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)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…