Patna High Court
Md. Hussain @ Saddam HussainversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail, pending verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, and held that the amended Excise Act no longer supports a presumption of possession.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Hussain, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case involving alleged recovery of 865.710 litres of liquor from a truck, with charges under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and Sections 30(a), 36 and 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018. He argued that he had no conscious possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicle, and was implicated solely on a confessional statement made by another person in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. He further contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a modest bond and sureties, and conditioned the confirmation of bail on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, with the order to be confirmed if he is found to have a clean record.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the serious offences alleged.
- Whether the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender applies after the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody, without corroboration, can form the basis for arrest.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 120(B), 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018 — s. 30(a), 36, 41(i)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- deemed possession
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
- excise law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25441 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2021 Thana- BAHADURGANJ District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Md. Hussain @ Saddam Hussain S/O Khalil Miya @ Salim Dewan R/O
Village- Churaman, P.S- Kesaria, Dist.- East Champaran (Motihari).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, A.P.P.
======================================================
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 apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420,
467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the BNS as well as Sections 30(a),
36 and 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 865.710 litres of liquor from a truck.
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 Amit
Kumar in police custody which does not have any evidentiary
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25441 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
2/3
value in the eye of law. It is next 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.
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.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 Bahadurganj P.S.
Case No. 202 of 2021, 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 even 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25441 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
3/3
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.