Patna High Court
Govind Saw @ Govind KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting provisional bail subject to bond and verification of antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Govind Saw, 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 23.6 litres of liquor from a public place behind a temple. The petitioner argued that he was not arrested at the spot, no liquor was found in his possession, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by another person in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. He also 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, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., and ordered verification of his criminal antecedents before confirming the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the alleged offence under Section 30(a) Excise Act involves no possession by the accused.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act on the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender for bail considerations.
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody can be the sole basis for denying anticipatory bail.
- What conditions should be imposed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. for provisional anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Excise Act
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- bail bond
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26771 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2026 Thana- RAMPUR CHAURAM District-
Jehanabad
======================================================
Govind Saw @ Govind Kumar son of Rampravesh Saw Resident of Village-
Nisarpura, Ps- Rampur Chauram, Dist- Arwal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Sonam Kumari
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 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 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act
and allegation is of recovery of 23.6 litres of liquor from a place
behind a temple.
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 alleged
recovery is from a place, which does not belong to the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26771 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
and is accessible to public at large and he came to be implicated
based on confessional statement of Ramesh in police custody,
which does not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted
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.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 Rampur Chauram P. S. Case No.25 of 2026, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26771 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
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…