Patna High Court
Mithlesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Kumar @ Mitthu @ MiththuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents, under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. and 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Summary
Mithlesh Kumar applied for anticipatory bail after learning that he may be arrested in a case under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of liquor near a poultry farm and from a motorcycle. He argued that he was not arrested on the spot, had no possession of the liquor, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by Ranveer Mahto while in police custody, which he claimed lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., directing the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents before confirming the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving alleged offences under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused made in police custody can be the sole basis for arrest.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment removing the concept of deemed possession on the bail application.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- possession
- confessional statement
- provisional bail
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25812 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2026 Thana- NAUHATTA District- Saharsa
======================================================
Mithlesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Kumar @ Mitthu @ Miththu Son of Sagar
Mandal @ Sagar Mahto R/O Vill.- Chauthampur, P.O.- Bairo, P.S.- Supaul,
District- Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 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 30(a) and
41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act,
2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 30 litres of liquor from a sack near
poultry farm of Pranav Singh and 25 litres of liquor from a
motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and has no concern
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25812 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
with the poultry farm nor the motorcycle belongs to him and he
came to be implicated based on the confessional statement of
Ranveer Mahto in police custody which does not have any
evidentiary value in the eye of law. It is further 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.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 Nauhatta P.S. Case
No. 06 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.
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 one
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25812 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
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
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner has antecedent of only one case in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…