Patna High Court
Sumit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions and verification of his antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Sumit Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 30(d) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of eight litres of liquor from the house of Devi Lal. He argued that he had no possession of the liquor, the alleged recovery occurred at a place unrelated to him, and the only evidence was a confessional statement of Devi Lal made in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The petitioner also 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 Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing bail bonds and sureties, and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent before confirming the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 30(a) and 30(d) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the confessional statement of Devi Lal, made in police custody, can be treated as substantive evidence.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Excise Act eliminates the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender for the purpose of granting bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19363 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2025 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria
======================================================
Sumit Kumar Son of Sunil Yadav Resident of village - Usri, P.S.- Gogari,
District- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Kishor Poddar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 26-03-2026 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 30(a) and
30(d) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 8 liters of liquor from the house of Devi Lal.
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 even alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
and petitioner has no concern or relation with Devi Lal and he
came to be implicated based on confessional statement of Devi
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19363 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
2/3
Lal in police custody which does not have any evidentiary
value. It is next 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.
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.
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 Gogri
P.S. Case No. 56 of 2025 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 even one case
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 is a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19363 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
3/3
person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…