Patna High Court
Suraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents and compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Summary
Suraj Kumar sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 414/34 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Sections 30(a), 32(ii) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. He contended that the allegations of liquor recovery from several vehicles were based solely on a co‑accused’s confessional statement, which he argued lacks evidentiary value, and that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The Court, applying Section 482(2) of the CrPC, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.15,000 with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. If more than three prior cases are found, the bail will not be confirmed; if exactly three, it will be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in view of the alleged offences under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether a confessional statement of a co‑accused can constitute sufficient basis for arrest in the absence of seized possession.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act on the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 34, 414
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 32(ii), 41(1)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482 CrPC
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24584 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-221 Year-2021 Thana- MITHANPURA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Suraj Kumar Son of Shambhu Mahto Resident of Mohalla - Veena Concert
Lane, Harisabha School Campus, P.S.- Mithanpura, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Alok
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 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 offence punishable under Sections 414/34 of
BNS and Sections 30(a), 32(ii) and 41(1) of Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of three cases, out of which, two cases
are under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 360
litres of liquor from an auto, 532.8 litres of liquor from another
auto, 146.88 litres of liquor from a maruti car and 13.95 litres of
liquor from a motorcycle. It is next submitted that petitioner
was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered
from his conscious possession and is not the owner of any of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24584 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
seized vehicle and he came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of apprehended accused in police
custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It is also
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
starts implicating mechanically either through chowkidar, local
person, confessional statement or secret information without
holding a proper investigation. It is further submitted that
petitioner earlier in similar manner also came to be implicated in
cases relating to excise.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, 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.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousasnd)
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 Mithanpura P.S. Case No.221/2021, subject
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24584 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
3/3
to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than
three cases, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner
had concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if
on verification it is found that petitioner has antecedent of three
cases, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall
be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…