Patna High Court
Madan RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents and compliance with conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.
Summary
Madan Rai applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act, alleging recovery of 785.88 litres of liquor from a pick‑up vehicle. He contended that he had no prior criminal record, was not in possession of the liquor, did not own the vehicle and was implicated only on the basis of a confessional statement made by another person in police custody, which he argued lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, noting the amendment to the Excise Act that removed the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish bail bonds of Rs 500 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his antecedents. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would be cancelled; otherwise it would be confirmed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for an alleged offence under Section 30(a) Excise Act.
- Whether a confessional statement of a co‑accused recorded in police custody can justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Effect of the amendment to the Excise Act, 2018, which abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender on the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30 Excise Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
- confessional statement
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25694 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2025 Thana- AURAI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Madan Rai Son of Bhatu Ray Resident of Village- Bindwara, P.S.- Aurai,
District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-04-2026 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
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 785.88 litres of liquor from a pick-up vehicle.
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 vehicle and he came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Ramjatan Rai in police custody, which
does not have any evidentiary value. It is next submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25694 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
2/3
after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the concept of
deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away
with.
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.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
Aurai P. S. Case No.146 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
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 even one case, then it
would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining
anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before this Court,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25694 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
3/3
in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall
not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…