Patna High Court
Sachin Kumar Singh @ Sachin KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to bond and verification of antecedents, with confirmation contingent on the petitioners having no more than the specified prior cases.
Summary
The petitioners, six individuals from Durgaur village, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 concerning the alleged recovery of 158.35 litres of liquor from four motorcycles. They argued that they were not arrested on the spot, had no conscious possession, and that the owner of one seized vehicle was unaware of its misuse, contending that confessional statements of an apprehended accused lack evidentiary value. They also highlighted that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditioned the confirmation of bail on verification of the petitioners' criminal antecedents, specifying that excess prior cases would lead to denial of confirmation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in view of the alleged offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the absence of conscious possession and the removal of the deemed‑possession concept after the 2018 amendment preclude the prosecution from establishing a case.
- Whether the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- deemed possession
- criminal antecedent
- Cr.P.C. Section 438
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23847 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-333 Year-2025 Thana- DAUDPUR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Sachin Kumar Singh @ Sachin Kumar Son of Brijbhushan Singh R/o
Village - Durgaur, P.S. - Manjhi, Dist. - Saran at Chapra, Bihar, Pin -
841402.
2. Ashish Kumar Singh @ Ashish Singh Son of Jitendra Singh R/o Village
Durgaur, P.S. - Manjhi, Dist. - Saran at Chapra, Bihar, Pin - 841402.
3. Sheru Sah @ Sheru Kumar Son of Mahesh Sah R/o Village Durgaur, P.S. -
Manjhi, Dist. - Saran at Chapra, Bihar, Pin - 841402.
4. Vikash Sharma @ Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Sharma Son of Sanjay
Sharma R/o Village Durgaur, P.S. - Manjhi, Dist. - Saran at Chapra, Bihar,
Pin - 841402.
5. Sandip Chaudhari @ Sandeep Kumar Chaudhary @ Sandip Kumar Son of
Ramayan Chaudhari R/o Village Durgaur, P.S. - Manjhi, Dist. - Saran at
Chapra, Bihar, Pin - 841402.
6. Manjay Sah Son of Bachcha Sah R/o Village Durgaur, P.S. - Manjhi, Dist. -
Saran at Chapra, Bihar, Pin - 841402.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravikant, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 09-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their 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 petitioners submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23847 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
2/4
petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of two cases under the Excise
Act, petitioner no. 4 has antecedent of one case under the Excise
Act and petitioners no. 2, 3, 5 and 6 are persons with clean
antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 158.35 litres of
liquor from four motorcycles.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession. It is further
submitted that petitioner no. 4 came to be implicated based on
the fact that he is owner of one of the seized vehicles. It is next
submitted that rest of the petitioners have no concern with any
of the alleged seized motorcycles. It is next submitted with
respect to petitioner no. 4 that no prudent person would use his
own vehicle for committing an occurrence and, thus, would
create evidence against himself and, hence, would get
implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner no. 4 was
completely unaware that his friend would misuse the vehicle in
the manner as alleged who also fled from the spot and the name
of the other petitioners transpired in the confessional statement
of apprehended accused in police custody which does not have
any evidentiary value in the eye of law. It is submitted that after
amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23847 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
3/4
deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away
with.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, let the
petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released
on provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each 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 Daudpur P.S. Case No. 333 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.
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners
and if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of more
than two cases, petitioner no. 4 has antecedent of more than one
case and petitioners no. 2, 3, 5 and 6 have antecedent of even
one case, it would be presumed that petitioners had concealed
their antecedent before this Court, at para 3 of the anticipatory
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23847 of 2026(2) dt.09-04-2026
4/4
bail application, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail
order shall not be confirmed, but, if it is found on verification
that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of only two cases, petitioner
no. 4 has antecedent of only one case and petitioners no. 2, 3, 5
and 6 are persons with clean antecedent, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…