Patna High Court
Kamlesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted where the petitioner has a clean antecedent, no evidence of possession, and the amendment removing deemed possession negates any presumption of guilt.
Summary
Kamlesh Kumar 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 allegedly recovering 1.5 litres of liquor from a bush behind a petrol pump. The petitioner argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not arrested at the scene, and no liquor was found in his possession; the allegation was based solely on a confessional statement of another accused. The State opposed the bail, contending that the offence warranted detention. The Court noted that the amendment to the Excise Act, 2018, has removed the concept of deemed possession and that a confessional statement of a co‑accused lacks evidentiary value. Considering the petitioner’s clean record and lack of direct evidence, the Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and verification of antecedents by the trial court. The order is conditional on Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and may be revoked if any prior case is discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC for an offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act when the accused has no possession of the contraband
- Effect of the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act removing the concept of deemed possession on bail considerations
- Whether a confessional statement of a co‑accused can form the basis for denying anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Section 30
- Section 438 CrPC
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20629 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-378 Year-2025 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Kamlesh Kumar, S/o Surendra Thakur R/o Village- Bhanaspatti, P.S-
Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Parmeshwar Vishwakarma
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy
======================================================
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 1.5 litres of liquor from a bush behind a petrol
pump.
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 even alleged
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioner
and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20629 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
2/3
Ranjit Kumar in police custody, which does not have any
evidentiary value. It is next submitted that 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
Runnisaidpur P. S. Case No.378 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20629 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before this Court,
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…