Patna High Court
Ravi Ranjan Manjhi @ Ravi Ranjan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, subject to bond and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Ranjan Manjhi, applied for anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under Sections 338, 336(3) and 304(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 30(a), 41(c), 33 and 34 of the Excise Act. He argued that he was not arrested at the scene, had no possession of the seized Scorpio, and was implicated solely on a confessional statement made by another person in police custody, which he claimed lacks evidentiary value. He further contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, making the allegations untenable. The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s prior criminal record of eight cases, seven of which are under the Excise Act. The Court, applying Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.40,000 bond with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent before confirming the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving serious offences under the B.N.S. and Excise Act despite the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent.
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody, lacking evidentiary value, can justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act removing deemed possession and presumed offender on the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Appropriate conditions to be imposed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 304(2), 336(3), 338
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a), 33, 34, 41(c)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438
- Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- confessional statement
- deemed possession
- provisional bail
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24744 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2026 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran
======================================================
Ravi Ranjan Manjhi @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar S/o Sita Ram Manjhi R/o vill -
Dhenuki, P.S.- Marhowrah, Distt.- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Alok Kumar Alok
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 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
Sections 338, 336(3) and 304(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections
30(a), 41(c), 33 and 34 of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of eight cases out of which seven
cases are under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of
800 litres of spirit from a Scorpio.
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 is not the owner of
the seized Scorpio and he came to be implicated based on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24744 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
confessional statement of Surendra in police custody, which
does not have any evidentiary value. It is next submitted that
after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the concept of
deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away
with. It is next submitted that police in majority of cases
implicating innocent persons either at the behest of Chaukidar,
local person, secret information and confessional statement in a
mechanical manner without holding a proper investigation. It is
also submitted that petitioner in similar manner earlier also
came to be implicated in cases relating to excise
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.40,000/- (Rupees Forty 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 Marhowrah P. S. Case No.217 of 2026, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24744 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
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 more than eight cases,
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 has antecedent of eight cases only, in that event,
the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…