Patna High Court
Arvind Kumar @ Arvind SahversusThe state of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
Arvind Kumar sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case alleging recovery of 2,466.72 litres of liquor from a truck, offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (Amendment Act, 2018‑22). He contended that he was not arrested on the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the truck, and that the case against him rested solely on a confessional statement of another accused, which he argued lacks evidentiary value, especially after the 2018 amendment abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. The order stipulated that if the petitioner is found to have more than ten prior cases, the bail would not be confirmed; if ten or fewer, the bail would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act where the accused claims lack of possession and reliance on a co‑accused’s confessional statement.
- Whether the amendment removing deemed possession and presumed offender affects the bail considerations.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent (ten cases) warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- possession
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- Section 438 CrPC
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23413 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1958 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Sah Son of Prahalad Sah @ Pahlad Sah R/O Vill.-
Tengrari, P.S- Siwaipatti, Dist - Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The state of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Priyesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Gulnar Begum, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 09-04-2026 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 30(a) and
32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016
(Amendment Act, 2018-22).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of ten cases out of which eight cases
are under the Excise Act as would manifest from the
supplementary affidavit.
4. Office is directed to trace the supplementary
affidavit and place the same with the records of the case.
5. Allegation is of recovery of 2466.72 litres of liquor
from a truck.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23413 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
2/3
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 truck and came to
be implicated based on the confessional statement of
apprehended accused in police 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.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
8. 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.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23413 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
3/3
is pending/Successor Court in connection with Excise P.S. Case
No. 1958 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
9. 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 ten
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 ten cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…