Patna High Court
Vipin Yadav @ Bipin KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court provisionally granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of his criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Vipin Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of 200 litres of liquor from a vehicle not owned by him. He argued that he was not in possession of the liquor at the time of arrest and that the case relied on a confessional statement made in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. He also contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to a Rs.5,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, with the bail to be confirmed or cancelled based on that verification.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022?
- Does the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act eliminate the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender for the petitioner?
- Whether the confessional statement made in police custody can be the sole basis for arrest and denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- criminal procedure
- confessional statement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16669 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-705 Year-2025 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya
======================================================
Vipin Yadav @ Bipin Kumar Son of Nagendra Yadav @ Nagendra Prasad
Resident of Thekhi, Vill.- Dhekhi, Post- Bahsa Pipra, P.S.- Fatehpur, Distt.-
Gaya, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhijeet Abhigyan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Asha Devi, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 16-04-2026 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 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 200 litres of liquor from an auto.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted
that petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to
be implicated based on the confessional statement of Guddu
Kumar in police custody which does not have any evidentiary
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16669 of 2026(3) dt.16-04-2026
2/3
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 appearing on behalf of 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.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 Gaya Mufassil P.S.
Case No. 705 of 2025, 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. However, 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 more than one
case, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16669 of 2026(3) dt.16-04-2026
3/3
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner has antecedent of only one case in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…