Patna High Court
Guddu Yadav @ Guddu RaiversusThe 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 his criminal antecedent.
Summary
Guddu Yadav sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case registered under Sections 112(2) and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Excise Act. He contended that the alleged seizure of 705.9 litres of liquor and two motorcycles occurred at a location not owned by him, that nothing was found in his conscious possession, and that the case against him relied on a confessional statement made by another person, Ranjit, while in police custody, which he argued lacks evidentiary value. He further submitted that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, and that the police had mechanically implicated him without proper investigation. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs 70,000 and two sureties, directing the trial court to verify his criminal antecedent and conditionally confirming the bail if he has no more than fourteen prior cases.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the allegations under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether a confessional statement made by a third person in police custody can form the basis for implicating the petitioner.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Excise Act eliminating deemed possession and presumed offender applies to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 112(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21937 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2026 Thana- BARGAINIA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Guddu Yadav @ Guddu Rai S/O Mahendra Yadav @ Mahendra Rai R/O
Village- Masaha Alam, Ward No. 03, P.S.- Bairgania, Distt.- Sitamarhi-
843313.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Surendra Kishore Thakur
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nityanand
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 24-04-2026 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 Sections 112(2) and
3(5) of BNS and Section 30(a)(c) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of fourteen cases out of which thirteen
cases are under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of
705.9 litres of liquor from an orchard and two motorcycles were
seized.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21937 of 2026(3) dt.24-04-2026
2/3
the seized vehicle and even the alleged recovery is from a place
which does not belong to the petitioner and he came to be
implicated based on confessional statement of Ranjit in police
custody which does not have any evidentiary value. 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 further submitted that once an
accused is implicated in a case relating to excise, the police
starts implicating mechanically either at the instance of
Chowkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret
information without holding a proper investigation.
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 within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on Provisional anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Fourteen
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 Bairgania P.S. Case
No. 49 of 2026 subject to the conditions as laid down under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21937 of 2026(3) dt.24-04-2026
3/3
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 more than
fourteen cases 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 verification if it is found that
petitioner has antecedent of fourteen cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…