Patna High Court
Kamlesh Das @ Kamlesh Kumar DasversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that, notwithstanding the petitioner’s alleged lack of conscious possession and the reliance on a co‑accused’s custodial confession, provisional anticipatory bail could be granted subject to bond, sureties and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
Petitioner Kamlesh Das sought anticipatory bail after a case was registered under Sections 30(a) and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 alleging recovery of 45 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He argued that he was not arrested on the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, was not the vehicle’s owner, and was implicated solely on a custodial confession of another accused, which he claimed lacks evidentiary value. The petitioner also contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on condition of a Rs.15,000 bond, two sureties, and a six‑week window for surrender, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent; if more than three prior cases are found, the bail will not be confirmed, otherwise it will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in view of the alleged offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether a custodial confession of a co‑accused can be the basis for implicating the petitioner.
- Whether the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, removed by the 2018 amendment, affect the bail application.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- confessional statement
- deemed possession
- criminal antecedent
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24727 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2025 Thana- BABUBARHI District- Madhubani
======================================================
Kamlesh Das @ Kamlesh Kumar Das Son of Ramjag Das Resident of -
Dalokhar, P.O.- Mirjapur, P.S.- Ladania, Distt.- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saroj Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahmad Ali, 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
41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of three cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 45 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.
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 petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to
be implicated based on the confessional statement of Mithilesh
Kumar in police custody which does not have any evidentiary
value in the eye of law. It is next submitted that after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24727 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
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.
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.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen 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 Babubarhi P.S.
Case No. 163 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 petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24727 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
3/3
three 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 three cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…