Patna High Court
Umesh SadayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, subject to conditions and verification of the petitioners' criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioners, Umesh Saday and Mukesh Kumar Saday, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with a case alleging offences under Sections 274 and 275 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for the recovery of 26 litres of liquor from a jointly owned family house. They argued that they have no prior criminal record, that the liquor was not in their conscious possession, and that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concept of deemed possession, making the allegations weak. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioners be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500 each with two sureties, subject to verification of their antecedent by the trial court. The order also stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail may be revoked, otherwise it will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted for alleged offences under Sections 274, 275 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the removal of the concept of deemed possession by the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act affects the bail application.
- Whether the fact that the liquor was recovered from a joint family property negates a presumption of possession by the accused.
- What conditions should be imposed on provisional anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 274, 275
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- liquor possession
- Excise Act
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17354 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-157 Year-2025 Thana- RUDRAPUR District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Umesh Saday Son of Siyalal Saday Resident of Village - Rudrapur,
Musahari Tol, P.S.- Rudrapur, District - Madhubani.
2. Mukesh Kumar Saday @ Mukesh Saday Son of Siyalal Saday Resident of
Village - Rudrapur, Musahari Tol, P.S.- Rudrapur, District - Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Baleshwar Kamat
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Pronoti Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 274, 275 of the B.N.S. and Section 30(a) of the Excise
Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the
allegation is of recovery of 26 litres of liquor from the house of
three accused persons including the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17354 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026
2/3
recovered from their conscious possession and even the house in
question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged
with certainty that it was the petitioner, who had kept the liquor
in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within their
knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the
concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been
done away with and they came to be implicated based on secret
information, which is the easiest way to implicate someone
without holding a proper investigation.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in
the sum 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 Rudrapur P. S. Case No.157 of 2025, subject to
the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17354 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026
3/3
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioners 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
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed their antecedent
before this Court, in that event, the present provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but if on
verification, it is found that petitioners are persons with clean
antecedent, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…