Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar Singh @ Rahul 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 his criminal antecedent.
Summary
Petitioner Rahul Kumar Singh sought anticipatory bail after the police indicated he would be arrested in a case alleging recovery of 5,265 litres of liquor from a truck, an offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. He contended that he was not arrested on the spot, the liquor was not found in his possession, he does not own the vehicle, and the case is based solely on a confessional statement of another accused, 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 mechanically implicate persons without proper investigation. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.96,000 bond with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent; if more than twenty‑four prior cases are found, the bail will not be confirmed.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to the petitioner in view of the alleged offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 and his prior criminal antecedent?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- CrPC Section 438
- confessional statement
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22114 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2024 Thana- DUMRAO District- Buxar
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Singh @ Rahul Kumar Son of Ratnesh Kumar Singh @
Ratnesh Singh R/O Vill.- Madhopur Nizma, P.S.- Mahua, District - Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 07-04-2026 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 (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of twenty-four cases under the Excise
Act and allegation is of recovery of 5265 litres of liquor from a
truck.
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
apprehended accused, namely, Krishnandan Rai in police
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22114 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
2/3
custody which does not have any evidentiary 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.
It is lastly submitted that petitioner in similar manner earlier
also came to be implicated in cases relating to excise.
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 appearing on behalf of 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.96,000/-
(Rupees Ninety-six 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
Dumraon P.S. Case No. 121 of 2024, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22114 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
3/3
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 more than
twenty-four 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 twenty-four
cases in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall
be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…