Patna High Court
Bipin KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted, but its confirmation depends on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Bipin Kumar, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 for alleged recovery of 450 litres of liquor from three motorcycles. He argued that he was not arrested at the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicles, and that the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by Dinesh in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. He further contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, and that the investigation was mechanically conducted without proper inquiry. The State opposed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditioned the confirmation of bail on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, stating that if more than two prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016
- Whether a confessional statement made by a co‑accused in police custody is sufficient ground for arrest and denial of bail
- Effect of the 2018 amendment removing the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender on bail considerations
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent should condition the confirmation of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- confessional statement
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- CrPC Section 438
- CrPC Section 482
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21209 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2026 Thana- Gurupa District- Gaya
======================================================
Bipin Kumar Son of Kailash Yadav Resident of Village- Fatehpur, P.S.-
Gurpa, District- Gaya Ji
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushp Raj Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-04-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 450 litres of liquor from three
different motorcycles.
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 any of the seized vehicles and
came to be implicated based on the confessional statement of
Dinesh in police custody which does not have any evidentiary
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21209 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
value in the eye of law. It is next submitted that 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 also submitted that once an accused is implicated in a
case relating to excise the police start implicating mechanically
either at the instance of the Chawkidar, local person,
confessional statement or secret information without holding a
proper investigation of the case.
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.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 Gurpa P.S. Case No. 05 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21209 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than two
cases, 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 has antecedent of only two cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.