Patna High Court
Mantu Kumar Rai @ Mantu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting provisional bail subject to conditions and verification of antecedents.
Summary
Mantu Kumar Rai applied for anticipatory bail anticipating arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Excise Act for allegedly recovering 800 litres of spirit from a pick‑up vehicle. The petitioner argued that he was not in actual possession of the vehicle, that the seizure was based solely on a confessional statement of another accused, and that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail, contending that the petitioner had two prior excise cases and that the allegations warranted custody. The Court noted that the confessional statement of another person lacks evidentiary value and that the amendment removed the presumption of possession, but it conditioned bail on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. Accordingly, the Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and compliance with Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., with the proviso that the bail may be revoked if more than two prior cases are found. The order was made subject to confirmation by the trial court after verification of antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Excise Act.
- Whether a confessional statement of another accused can form the basis for arrest and bail denial.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act on the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- Section 438 CrPC
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22418 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-339 Year-2025 Thana- TARAIYA District- Saran
======================================================
Mantu Kumar Rai @ Mantu Kumar son of Mulaki Rai @ Surendra Ray @
Mulki Rai Resident of village- Pojhi Parsa, Ps- Parsa, Dist- Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nityanand
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 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
Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act
and allegation is of recovery of 800 litres of spirit from a pick-
up vehicle along with two mobiles.
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 is not the owner of
the seized vehicle and he came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of apprehended accused in police
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22418 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/3
custody, which does not have any evidentiary value. It further
submitted that after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the
concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been
done away with. It is next submitted that police in majority of
cases implicating innocent persons either at the behest of
Chaukidar, local person, secret information and confessional
statement in a mechanical manner without holding a proper
investigation.
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.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 Taraiya P. S. Case No.339 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22418 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/3
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 more than two cases,
then it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of
obtaining 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 has antecedent of two cases only, in that event,
the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…