Patna High Court
Sunil KoraversusThe state of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail, pending verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Kora, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of 360 litres of liquor from his motorcycle and house. He argued that he was not arrested on the spot, that the liquor was not in his conscious possession, and that the house is a joint family property, making it uncertain that he stored the liquor. He further contended that the 2018 amendment abolished the doctrine of deemed possession and that the case was based solely on a confessional statement of another accused, which lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.5,000 bond, two sureties, and a condition that the trial court verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent before confirming the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in view of the alleged offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the doctrine of deemed possession applies post‑2018 amendment and whether the confessional statement of another accused can form the basis for arrest.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged joint family ownership of the house negates the presumption of possession.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise offence
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- joint family property
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24724 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2026 Thana- DHARHARA District- Munger
======================================================
Sunil Kora S/O Bagudha Kora @ Aghnu Kora Resident of village - Bajhi
Tand Barmasia, P.S- Dharahra, District- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The state of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Kamal Nayan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Khurshid Anwar, A.P.P.
======================================================
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 offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and
32 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 360 litres of liquor from a
motorcycle and from the house of the petitioner as detailed in
the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted
that the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it
cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24724 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house
was within his knowledge and 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 next
submitted that petitioner 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 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.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. 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.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 Dharahra P.S. Case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24724 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
3/3
No. 25 of 2026, 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 petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one
case, 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 one case in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…