Patna High Court
Sujeet Kumar @ AfsarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court provisionally granted anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents and compliance with the conditions imposed.
Summary
The petitioner, Sujeet Kumar, feared arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 45 litres of liquor from a vehicle he did not own. He argued that no liquor was found in his possession, the vehicle belonged to another, and the case relied on a confessional statement of a co‑accused taken in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. He also contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs 5,000 with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, stating that the bail would not be confirmed if more than one prior case is found.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act given the facts.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused taken in police custody can be a basis to deny anticipatory bail.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment removing the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender on the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- confessional statement
- deemed possession
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20268 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2026 Thana- JANDAHA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Sujeet Kumar @ Afsar S/O Akhilesh Rai R/O village- Nauranpur, P.s.-
Mahnar, Dist.- Vaishali, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anil Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Asha Devi
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 31-03-2026 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 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 45 litres of liquor from a car.
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 Adarsh in police custody which does
not have any evidentiary value. It is next submitted that after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20268 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
2/3
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.
5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) 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 Jandaha
P.S. Case No. 42 of 2026, 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 more
than 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20268 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
3/3
verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of one
case in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.