Patna High Court
Sampat Kumar @ Sapat Kumar @ Sampat YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted subject to conditions, pending verification of the petitioner’s clean antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Sampat Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail in a case alleging violation of Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for allegedly possessing 32.25 litres of liquor recovered from his joint family house. The petitioner argued that he has a clean antecedent, was not arrested at the spot, and that the liquor was not in his conscious possession; moreover, the amendment to the Excise Act in 2018 abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail, but the court noted the lack of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the liquor and the procedural deficiency of the FIR. Accordingly, the court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., directing the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent before confirming the bail. The order also stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. in view of the alleged offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the amendment to the Excise Act, 2018, which removed the doctrine of deemed possession, affects the prosecution's case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- clean antecedent
- joint family property
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23495 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2025 Thana- Kanaria District- Saharsa
======================================================
Sampat Kumar @ Sapat Kumar @ Sampat Yadav Son of Late Biduri Yadav
Resident of Village- Sukhasan, P.S.- Kanariya, District- Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amarnath Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 09-04-2026 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
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 32.25 litres of liquor from the house of the
petitioner.
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 even the house in
question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged
with certainty that it was the petitioner, who had kept the liquor
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23495 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
2/3
in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his
knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the
concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been
done away with and he came to be implicated at the instance of
local person, but the name of the person, who disclosed the
name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the F.I.R., which casts
an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner has
not been implicated based on secret information. It is also
submitted that how local person would know who had
concealed the liquor in the courtyard of the petitioner.
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.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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
Kanariya P. S. Case No.41 of 2025, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23495 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
3/3
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 even one case, 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 is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…