Patna High Court
Teni Rai @ Teni Ray @ Teni KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that, given the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of conscious possession, provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to verification of antecedents under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Teni Rai, 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 recovery of 40 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not in conscious possession of the liquor, and that the case against him is based solely on a confessional statement of another accused made in police custody, which lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warrant arrest. The Court noted the amendment to the Excise Act that removed the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, and directed that provisional anticipatory bail be granted subject to the petitioner furnishing bail bonds and the trial court verifying his antecedents. The Court further stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the provisional bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed immediately.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC for an offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether a confessional statement made by a co-accused in police custody can form the basis for arrest and denial of bail.
- Effect of the amendment removing the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender on the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30 Excise Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20050 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-489 Year-2025 Thana- DIGHWARA District- Saran
======================================================
Teni Rai @ Teni Ray @ Teni Kumar S/o Kapil Ray R/o Village- Ganghara,
P.s.- Sahpur, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Avinash Kumar Pandey
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Pushpa Sinha.1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 31-03-2026 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 40 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
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 is not the owner of
the seized motorcycle and he came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Maya Kumar in police custody, which
does not have any evidentiary value. It is next submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20050 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
2/3
after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the concept of
deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away
with.
5. Learned A.P.P. 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
Dighwara P. S. Case No.489 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
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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20050 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
3/3
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
Checking your session…