Patna High Court
Ravi HembramversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that, pending verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Hembram, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged alleging that 180 litres of liquor and 12 kg of Naushadar tablets were recovered from his house, invoking Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018. He contended that he has a clean antecedent, that the liquor was stored in a joint‑family house and not in his conscious possession, and that the amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the doctrine of deemed possession. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the allegations warranted arrest. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a modest bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. It directed that if the antecedent check reveals any prior case, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, the provisional order would be confirmed. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC in view of the alleged possession of liquor and Naushadar tablets under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
- Whether the amendment removing the concept of deemed possession affects the petitioner’s liability and the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
- CrPC Section 438
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20520 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2024 Thana- KORHA District- Katihar
======================================================
Ravi Hembram S/o Late Shiva Hembram R/o Village - Sri Kole (Santhali
Tola), P.S - Korha, District - Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 180 litres of liquor from the house of the petitioner
along with 12 Kg. of Naushadar Tablet.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted
that the house in question is a joint family property, as such, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20520 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
2/3
was within his knowledge and after amendment in the Excise
Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and
presumed offender has been done away with. It is next
submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of
the Chawkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is also
submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement
of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform
the police prior to the institution of the instant FIR which casts
an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner
admittedly is a person with clean antecedent.
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, let 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 Korha P.S. Case No. 72 of 2024, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20520 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
3/3
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case,
it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…