Patna High Court
Chandeshwar Mahto @ Mushharu MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties and verification of antecedents, with confirmation contingent on the outcome of that verification.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandeshwar Mahto, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act alleging recovery of 25 litres of liquor from his joint family house. He argued that the liquor was not found in his conscious possession, the house is jointly owned, and the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after hearing both sides, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.5,000 bond, two sureties, and a condition that the trial court verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents within six weeks. If more than one prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if only one prior case, the bail will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act where possession of liquor is not proven.
- Whether the 2018 amendment removing deemed possession affects the bail application.
- What conditions may be imposed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS for provisional anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- provisional bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17114 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2026 Thana- BIRAUL District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Chandeshwar Mahto @ Mushharu Mahto S/O Kari Mahto Resident of
Village- Afzala, Khewa tola, P.S.- Biroul, District- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Asha Devi, APP
======================================================
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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 25 liters of liquor from house of the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing
was recovered from his conscious possession and 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 in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17114 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his
knowledge and after amendment in the excise act in the year
2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender
has been done away with and he came to be implicated based on
secret information which is the easiest way to implicate
someone
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.
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 Biraul
P.S. Case No. 54 of 2026 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 one
case then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17114 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner has
antecedent of one case only, in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…