Patna High Court
RANJAN KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the petitioners’ disclosed criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, three brothers from Dakaramma, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 274 and 275 of the Bihar Narcotic and Smuggling Act, 2023 read with Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act, alleging recovery of 2,926 litres of spirit and a seized auto. They argued that the alleged seizure was from a public bamboo orchard, not from their possession, and that the only evidence was a confessional statement made in police custody, which they claimed lacked evidentiary value. They further contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. Justice Satyavrat Verma granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.25,000 bond with two sureties each, subject to verification of each petitioner’s criminal antecedents under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, and stipulated that the bail would be confirmed only if the antecedents matched the figures disclosed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Sections 274 and 275 of the Bihar Narcotic and Smuggling Act, 2023 read with Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the confessional statement made in police custody constitutes sufficient evidence to deny bail.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment removing the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender on bail considerations.
- Whether the petitioners’ prior criminal antecedents justify denial of anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic and Smuggling Act — s. 274, 275, 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- criminal antecedent
- Bihar Narcotic and Smuggling Act
- Bihar Excise Act
- confessional statement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27084 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-330 Year-2026 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. RANJAN KUMAR S/o- Pragas Sahani R/o village- Dakaramma, PS-
Hathauri, District- Muzaffarpur
2. Ravin Sahani S/o- Shiv Nandan Sahni R/o village- Dakaramma, PS-
Hathauri, District- Muzaffarpur
3. Dinesh Sahani S/o- Ram Ekwal Sahani R/o village- Dakaramma, PS-
Hathauri, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 274 and
275 of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act,
petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of three cases under the Excise
Act and petitioner no. 3 has antecedent of five cases under the
Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 2926 liters of spirit
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27084 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
from a bamboo orchard and an Auto was seized.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not apprehended from the spot as such nothing
was recovered from their conscious possession and even alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the
petitioners and is accessible to public at large and are not the
owner of the seized vehicles and came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Randir in police custody which does
not have any evidentiary value. It is also 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 petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Trial Court
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27084 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
with Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 330 of 2026 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the
event if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of more
than one case, petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of more than three
cases and petitioner no. 5 has antecedent of more than five cases
then it would be presumed that petitioners, for the purposes of
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed their antecedent before
this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not
be confirmed with respect to the petitioner who had concealed his
antecedent, but after verification if it is found that petitioner no. 1
has antecedent of one case only, petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of
three cases only and petitioner no. 5 has antecedent of five cases
only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…