Patna High Court
Raju KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail, pending verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, and clarified that the bail will be confirmed only if he is found to have a clean criminal record.
Summary
The petitioner, Raju Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 16.8 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He argued that he had no conscious possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicle, and that the case against him was based solely on a confessional statement made by another accused, Nagendra, while 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 the bail. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs. 500 bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, stipulating that the bail would be confirmed only if he is found to have a clean record.
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 arrest.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Excise Act eliminates the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender for purposes of anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30
- confessional statement
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17024 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-242 Year-2021 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Raju Kumar S/o- Harishek Prasad @ Hari Shankar Mahto R/v- Indarwa
W.No-14, Ps- Sonbarsa Dist- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sucheta Yadav, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-03-2026 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 Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 16.8 liters of liquor from a motorcycle.
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 is not the owner of
the seized vehicle and came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Nagendra in police custody which
does not have any evidentiary value. It is next submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17024 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
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, 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 Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 242 of 2021 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 even
one case 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 is a person with clean
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17024 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
antecedent, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…