Patna High Court
Shivandra Kumar Ray @ Shivam MishraversusThe 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 petitioner having no more than two prior cases.
Summary
The petitioner, Shivandra Kumar Ray (aka Shivam Mishra), sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(b) and Bihar Excise Act sections 30(a) and 41(1). He argued that he was not caught in possession of the alleged liquor, that the only evidence was a confessional statement made by another accused in police custody, and that the amendment to the Excise Act in 2018 had abolished the concept of deemed possession. He also contended that the FIR misidentified him by using a different name without his father's name. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, stating that if more than two prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in the present case despite the serious offences alleged.
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody is admissible for bail considerations.
- Whether the alleged misidentification and lack of seized possession affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the amendment to the Bihar Excise Act removing deemed possession impacts the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(b), 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC offences
- excise law
- confessional statement
- deemed possession
- misidentification
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18634 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-378 Year-2020 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Shivandra Kumar Ray @ Shivam Mishra Son of Anjeer Kumar Ray @ Anjir
Kumar Ray Resident of Village - Chakhabib, Chak Habib, P.S. - DalsingSarai,
Dist. - Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhav Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 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 Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections
30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 2691 liters of liquor from a Trolley
Truck.
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 is not the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18634 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/3
owner of the seized vehicle and came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Parbindar in police custody which
does not have any evidentiary value. It is also 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 next submitted that petitioner in the FIR has
been implicated by the name of Shivam R/o Chak Habib,
Bibhutipur without disclosing his father’s name when name of
the petitioner is Shivandra Kumar Ray @ Shivam Mishra, but
then police raided the house of the petitioner alleging that it was
this petitioner who was implicated in the instant case by the
aforesaid name Shivam R/o Chak Habib, as such, petitioner
apprehends his arrest.
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.
10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18634 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/3
the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Dalsinghsarai P.S. Case No. 378 of 2020 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 two
cases then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this
Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner has
antecedent of two cases only in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…