Patna High Court
Ranjay Singh @ Ranjay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to petitioners 1 and 2, subject to bond, sureties and verification of their antecedents.
Summary
Petitioners Ranjay Singh and Sunny Kumar applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 for alleged recovery of 12 litres of liquor from a truck. They argued they have clean antecedents, are not owners of the truck, and that the case is based solely on a confessional statement of another accused, which they claim lacks evidentiary value. They also contended that the 2018 amendment abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The Court allowed a provisional anticipatory bail order, requiring a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and conditioning confirmation on verification of the petitioners' antecedents. If any prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise it will be confirmed forthwith. The application of petitioner 3 was withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
- Whether the confessional statement of another accused can form the basis of the FIR.
- Whether the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender survive post the 2018 amendment.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- confessional statement
- deemed possession
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18877 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2026 Thana- SARE District- Nalanda
======================================================
1. Ranjay Singh @ Ranjay Kumar S/O Shri Rajendra Singh R/O Vill. and P.S.-
Sare, Dist.- Nalanda
2. Sunny Kumar S/O Shri Ranjay Singh R/O Vill. and P.S.- Sare, Dist.-
Nalanda
3. Rishu Kumar @ Ashutosh Kumar S/O Shri Ranjay Singh R/O Vill. and P.S.-
Sare, Dist.- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Kanupriya Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 26-03-2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset,
seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with
respect to petitioner no. 3, namely, Rishu Kumar @ Ashutosh
Kumar who was arrested during pendency of the same.
2. Permission is accorded.
3. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application with
respect to petitioner no. 3 is dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners no. 1 and 2
and Mr. Rabindra Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
5. The petitioners no. 1 and 2 apprehend their arrest in a
case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of
the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners no. 1 and 2
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18877 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
2/3
submits that petitioners no. 1 and 2 are persons with clean
antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 12 litres of liquor from
a truck.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners no. 1 and 2
submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it
would manifest that total recovery shown in the FIR is 12 litres of
liquor from a truck, but, from perusal of the seizure list, it
manifests that apart from 12 litres of liquor seized from the truck,
868.88 litres of liquor is also shown in the seizure list but then the
same is not the part of the allegation in the FIR. It is next
submitted that petitioners no. 1 and 2 are not the owners of the
seized truck and they came to be implicated based on the
confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody
which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law. 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.
8. Mr. Rabindra Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners no. 1 and
2.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners no. 1 and 2, let the petitioners no. 1 and
2, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18877 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
3/3
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 Sare P.S. Case No. 18
of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
10. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial
Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners no. 1
and 2 and if it is found that petitioners no. 1 and 2 have antecedent
of even one case, it would be presumed that petitioners no. 1 and 2
had concealed their antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the
anticipatory bail application in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if it is found on
verification that petitioners no. 1 and 2 are persons with clean
antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…