Patna High Court
Vivek Bharti @ Vivek 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
Vivek Bharti applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with alleged offences under Sections 30(a), 41(1) and 41(2) of the Excise Act. He argued that he was not arrested, no liquor was recovered from his possession, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement of co‑accused made in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish bail bonds of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and appear before the trial court within six weeks. The court directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and warned that if more than one prior case is found, the bail may be withdrawn; otherwise, the provisional bail would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC in the present circumstances.
- Whether the amendment to the Excise Act removing the concept of deemed possession affects the bail application.
- Whether a confessional statement of an accused in police custody can form the basis for anticipatory bail denial.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 41(1), 41(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22779 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Vivek Bharti @ Vivek Kumar S/O Sudeshwar Bharti Resident of Village-
Kunda Ward No. 9, P.S.- Aurangabad Muffasil, District- Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binod Kumar Pandey
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Iftekhar Mahmood
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 27-04-2026 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), 41(1) and 41(2) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act
and allegation is of recovery of 13.2 litres of liquor from
possession of Rahul Kmar and Ujjawal Kumar.
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 he came to be
implicated based on confessional statement of apprehended
accused in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22779 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
2/3
value. It is also 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.5,000/- (Rupees Five 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 Aurangabad Excise P. S. Case No.46 of 2026, 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 more than one case, then
it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22779 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
3/3
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 one case only, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…