Patna High Court
Suraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Suraj Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of 8.46 litres of liquor and Rs.1,66,600 from his joint family house. He argued that he was not arrested on the spot, no liquor was found in his conscious possession, and that the house being joint family property precludes attributing possession to him. He further contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, and that the case was based on secret information without proper investigation. The State opposed the anticipatory bail. The Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.5,000 bond, two sureties, and a condition that the bail be confirmed only if verification shows the petitioner has no more than two prior cases; otherwise the bail would not be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for an alleged offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the alleged possession of liquor in a joint family house can be imputed to the petitioner absent conscious possession.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- possession
- excise law
- joint family property
- criminal antecedent
- Section 30
- Section 438
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25586 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2026 Thana- GARDANIBAG District- Patna
======================================================
Suraj Kumar S/o Sanjay Prasad R/o- Chitkohra Chabal Mandi, P.S.-
Gardanibagh, Distt- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Jiban Pd Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umanath Mishra, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-04-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 8.46 litres of liquor from the house
of the petitioner along with Rs.1,66,600/-.
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
had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25586 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
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
secret information which is the easiest way to implicate
someone. 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 Gardanibagh P.S.
Case No. 138 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25586 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
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 two
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 two cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…