Patna High Court

Nandlal Manjhi @ Nandlal MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 18 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to a bond of Rs. 500 and two sureties of the same amount.

Summary

The petitioner, Nandlal Manjhi, applied for bail in a criminal case under Sections 30(a), 32 and 41(i) of the Bihar Excise Act, alleging that 50 litres of liquor were recovered from the house of Suresh Manjhi and another 50 litres from his own residence. He contended that he had no conscious possession of the liquor, that the house is joint family property, and that the concept of deemed possession was abolished by the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act. He further argued that the complaint was filed by a hostile chowkidar and that there was no reason to believe he would abscond. The State opposed bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, held that bail should be granted on condition of a Rs. 500 bond and two sureties of the same amount, directing his release pending trial.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in offences under the Bihar Excise Act.
Whether the doctrine of deemed possession applies after the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Excise Act.
Whether the petitioner is likely to abscond or tamper with evidence.

Subjects

bail
Bihar Excise Act
deemed possession
joint family property
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24989 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-387 Year-2025 Thana- ADAPUR District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Nandlal Manjhi @ Nandlal Mahto Son of Late Lakshandeo Manjhi @
                 Lakshandeo Mahto Resident of Village - Barwadih Dhangar Toli, P.S.-
                 Adapur, District - East Champaran
                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Ms. Geeta Kumari
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Zainul Abedin
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   18-04-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 32 and 41(i) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 50 liters of liquor from house of Suresh Manjhi and

                   50 liters of liquor from house of petitioner

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing

                   was recovered from his conscious possession and the house in

                   question is a joint family property, as such, it cannot be alleged

                   with certainty that it was petitioner who 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
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24989 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                      2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender

                      has been done away with and he came to be implicated at the

                      instance of Chowkidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It

                      is also submitted that if Chowkidar was aware of the

                      involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did

                      not inform the police prior to institution of the instant FIR

                      which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is

                      also submitted that petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2026 and

                      if privilege of bail is granted, the petitioner will not abscond

                      rather will cooperate in the trial to prove his innocence.

                                   5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the bail

                      application of the petitioner.

                                   6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

                      counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, is

                      directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.

                      500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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 Adapur

                      P.S. Case No. 387 of 2025.


                                                        (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Rishabh/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…