Patna High Court
Jayprakash Ram @ Jay Prakash RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, subject to a bail bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Jayprakash Ram, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with alleged offences under Sections 274 and 275 of the B.N.S. and Section 30(a) of the Excise Act, involving the alleged recovery of 206.58 litres of liquor from a jointly owned family house. He argued that he was not arrested, that no liquor was found in his conscious possession, and that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the doctrine of deemed possession, rendering the charge untenable. The State opposed the bail, contending that the offences were cognizable. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, with the bail to be confirmed only if the antecedent is limited to a single prior case. The order was made subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving alleged possession of liquor under the Excise Act and Sections 274/275 of the B.N.S.
- Whether the 2018 amendment removing the concept of deemed possession affects the grant of bail.
- Whether the credibility of the informant (chaukidar) impacts the bail decision.
- What conditions must be imposed on provisional anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) CrPC.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 274, 275
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26342 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2026 Thana- ANDHRATHARHI District- Madhubani
======================================================
Jayprakash Ram @ Jay Prakash Ray S/O Late Shyam Sundar Ray @
Gadhoushi Ray R/O Village - Sahuriya, P.S- Andhrathari, Distt.- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ratnakar Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Parmanand Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 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
Sections 274 and 275 of the B.N.S. and Section 30(a) of the
Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act
and allegation is of recovery of 206.58 litres of liquor from
house of the petitioner.
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 even the house in
question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26342 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
with certainty that it was the 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, 2018, the
concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been
done away with and he came to be implicated at the instance of
Chaukidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is further
submitted that if Chaukidar was aware of the involvement of the
petitioners in the occurrence, then why he did not inform the
police prior to institution of the present F.I.R., which casts an
aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
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.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 Andhrathari P. S. Case No.21 of 2026, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26342 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
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 more than one case, then
it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before
this Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail
order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found
that petitioner has antecedent of one case only, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…