Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Bharat PaswanversusThe State Of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.

Summary

The petitioner, Bharat Paswan, 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 possession of six litres of liquor. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, the liquor was found in a joint family house and not in his conscious possession, and that the complaint was filed by a hostile watchman. The State opposed the bail. The Court considered the submissions, noted the amendment to the Excise Act that removed the concept of deemed possession, and directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500 with two sureties, subject to verification of his antecedent. The order also stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC for an alleged offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
  • Whether the presence of liquor in a joint family house establishes the petitioner’s possession and liability.
  • Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Section 30 Excise Act
  • Section 438 CrPC
  • possession
  • joint family property
  • clean antecedent
  • bail bonds

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19165 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-852 Year-2025 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Bharat Paswan S/O Late Ratan Paswan Resident Of Village - Guddupur, Po
                 And PS Harsidhi, Dist East Champaran

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State Of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Pravin Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Rabindra Kumar- A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   26-03-2026                  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 06 litres of liquor from house of the petitioner.

                                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 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 his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19165 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
                                            2/3




          knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the

          concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been

          done away with and he came to be implicated at the instance of

          Chaukidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is further

          submitted that if Chaukidar was aware of the involvement of the

          petitioners in the occurrence, then why he did not inform the

          police prior to institution of the present F.I.R., which casts an

          aspersion on the case of the prosecution.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. Sri Rabindra Kumar 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

          Harsidhi P. S. Case No.852 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
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19165 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
                                                           3/3




                         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

                         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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.