Patna High Court
Subodh SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to bond, sureties and verification of criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioners, Subodh Singh and his son Santosh Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged possession of 9 litres of liquor found in their joint family house. They argued they have clean antecedents, that no liquor was recovered from their conscious possession, and that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The Court considered these submissions and, invoking Section 482(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties, and directed the trial court to verify the petitioners' criminal antecedents before confirming the bail. If any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed for that petitioner. The order is subject to the usual conditions of anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is appropriate in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act involving alleged possession of liquor.
- Whether the 2018 amendment removing deemed possession and presumed offender concepts bars arrest of the petitioners.
- Whether lack of conscious possession and joint family ownership of the premises negate liability.
- Whether the petitioners' criminal antecedent affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- Section 30
- Bihar Excise Act
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- joint family property
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482
- CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17193 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2026 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Subodh Singh S/o Late Banarsi Singh R/o Village- Nawada, PS- Chautham,
Distt- Khagaria
2. Santosh Kumar @ Pankaj Singh S/o Subodh Singh R/o Village- Nawada,
PS- Chautham, Distt- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chandan Kumar Kashyap
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Rabindra Kumar.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 9 litres of liquor from the house of the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and the house in
question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17193 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026
2/3
with certainty that it were petitioners who had kept the liquor in
the house or the liquor kept in the house was within knowledge
of the petitioners. 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. It
is further submitted that they came to be implicated at the
instance of Chowkidar with whom they are on an inimical term.
It is next submitted that if Chowkidar was aware about the
involvement of the petitioners in the occurrence, then why he
did not inform the police prior to institution of the instant FIR,
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their 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) each
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 Chautham P.S. Case No. 7 of 2026 subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section Section 482(2) of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17193 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026
3/3
BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the
event if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of even one
case then it would be presumed that petitioners, for the purposes of
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed their antecedent before
this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not
be confirmed with respect to that petitioner who had concealed his
criminal antecedent before this Court, but after verification if it is
found that petitioners are person with clean antecedent in that
event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…