Patna High Court

Pappu Kumar @ Pappu YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 17 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.

Summary

The petitioner, Pappu Kumar, feared arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act alleging recovery of 79.125 litres of liquor from a four‑wheeler. He argued that he was not in possession of the vehicle, had no prior criminal record, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by Md. Sarmfraz while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs 500 with two sureties and directed verification of the petitioner’s antecedent. If any prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, the provisional order will be confirmed.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act where the alleged offence is based on a police‑custody confessional statement.
Whether the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender, removed by the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act, affects the bail application.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bihar Excise Act
Section 30(a)
confessional statement
deemed possession
clean antecedent
provisional bail

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20594 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2024 Thana- TETERHAT District- Lakhisarai
                 ======================================================
                 Pappu Kumar @ Pappu Yadav Son of Sakendra Yadav Resident of Village-
                 Sarouni, P.S.- Kawakol, District- Nawada

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Md. Aslam Ansari, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-04-2026                  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

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 79.125 liters of liquor from a four wheeler.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing

                   was recovered from his conscious possession and is not the

                   owner of the seized vehicle and came to be implicated based on

                   confessional statement of Md. Sarmfraz in police custody which

                   does not have any evidentiary value. It is next submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20594 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
                                            2/3




          after 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.

          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 Tetarhat

          P.S. Case No. 130 of 2024 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
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20594 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                      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)
Rishabh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…