Patna High Court
Anil MukhiyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting provisional bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Summary
Anil Mukhiya 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 22 litres of liquor from the courtyard of Madhusudan Ram. The petitioner argued that he was not in possession of the liquor, the alleged recovery occurred on premises not belonging to him, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by Madhusudan 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 High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.5,000 bond with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, with the bail to be confirmed only if he has no more than one prior case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the alleged offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act is based on a confessional statement and no possession is established.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act removing deemed possession and presumed offender concepts affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
- What conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. must be satisfied for granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18431 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2026 Thana- BIRAUL District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Anil Mukhiya S/o Gujaya Mukhiya Resident of village - Ramnagar Ward no.
9, P.S - Biraul, District - Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Mili Kumari
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-04-2026 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 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act
and allegation is of recovery of 22 litres of liquor from
courtyard of house of Masudan Ram.
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 place, which does not belong to the petitioner
and petitioner has no concern or relation with Madhusudan and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18431 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of
Madhusudan in police custody, which does not have any
evidentiary value. It is next 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.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.81 of 2026, 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 more than one case, then
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18431 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of
obtaining 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 has antecedent of one case only, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…