Patna High Court
Govind Kumar @ Goutam KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Govind Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 for allegedly possessing 135.75 litres of liquor recovered from a car. He argued he had no conscious possession, was not the vehicle owner, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by another person in police custody, which he claimed lacks evidentiary value. The petitioner also highlighted 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 subject to a modest bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, with confirmation contingent on a clean record.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case of alleged liquor possession under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused in police custody provides sufficient basis to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the abolition of deemed possession and presumed offender concepts affects the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30
- Section 438
- excise law
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20577 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2026 Thana- ALOULI District- Khagaria
======================================================
Govind Kumar @ Goutam Kumar, S/O Rajesh Mahto Resident of Village-
Pushaho, P.S.- Bithan, Dist.- Samastipur
... ... 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 : Ms. Sucheta Yadav, 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, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 135.75 litres of liquor from a car.
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 petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to
be implicated based on the confessional statement of Nitish
Kumar in police custody which does not have any evidentiary
value in the eye of law. It is next submitted that after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20577 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, 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 Alauli P.S. Case No. 07 of 2026, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20577 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
3/3
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…