Patna High Court
Vikash YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.
Summary
Vikash Yadav applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged recovery of 2.25 litres of liquor from the house of Rahul Kumar. The petitioner asserted that he has a clean antecedent, that no liquor was found in his possession, and that the only evidence against him is a confessional statement made by Rahul Kumar while in police custody, which he claimed lacks evidentiary value. He also contended that the amendment to the Excise Act, 2018, has abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to the petitioner furnishing bail bonds of Rs 500 with two sureties and complying with conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC, and directed the trial court to verify his antecedent before confirming the bail. If any prior case is found, the bail may be withdrawn; otherwise it will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC when the alleged offence under Section 30(a) Excise Act is based solely on a confessional statement and no possession is established.
- Whether the amendment to the Excise Act, 2018, removing the doctrine of deemed possession, affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18190 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-458 Year-2025 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria
======================================================
Vikash Yadav S/O Singheshwar Yadav R/O Vill.- Kuwari, P.S- Raniganj,
District- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gopal Kumar Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 2.25 litres of liquor from house of Rahul Kumar.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even alleged
recovery is from a house which does not belong to the petitioner
and petitioner has no concern or relation with Rahul and he
came to be implicated based on the confessional statement of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18190 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/3
Rahul in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary
value. It is further submitted that after Amendment in the Excise
Act, 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed
offender has been done away with.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
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 Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum 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
Raniganj P. S. Case No.458 of 2025, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner 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 obtaining
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18190 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail had concealed his 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
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…