Patna High Court
Shamsad Alam @ ShamsadversusThe state of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, with confirmation contingent on a clean record.
Summary
The petitioner, Shamsad Alam, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 18 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He argued he had a clean antecedent, was not the owner of the vehicle, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by Rohit while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The petitioner also contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The Court, applying Section 482(2) of the BNSS, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a modest bail bond and two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, after which the bail would be confirmed if he remains clean‑recorded.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act where the alleged offence is based on a confessional statement and no possession is proved.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Excise Act eliminates the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender for the purpose of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent warrants the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19734 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-603 Year-2025 Thana- MIRGANJ District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Shamsad Alam @ Shamsad S/O Pan Mohammad @ Pan Mahammad R/O
Vill.- Otnipatti Bhatvaliya, Ps- Mirganj Dist- Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The state of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shubhesh Pandey
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar
======================================================
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 Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 18 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of the
seized vehicle and he came to be implicated based on confessional
statement of Rohit 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19734 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
2/2
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 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 Mirganj P.S. Case
No. 603 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 person with
clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…