Patna High Court
NITISH KUMAR BHARTI @ NITISH KUMARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court provisionally granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, statutory conditions, and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitish Kumar Bharti, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, alleging recovery of 30 litres of liquor from the house of Sarup Lal Pandit. He argued that he had no conscious possession, was not arrested at the scene, and that the confessional statement of Sarup Lal made in police custody was inadmissible. He 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. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.500, two sureties of the same amount, and compliance with Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., with a condition that the trial court verify the petitioner’s antecedent before confirming the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the confessional statement of a third party made in police custody is admissible as evidence.
- Whether the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender remain applicable after the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- prohibition and excise
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- Bihar law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27260 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2026 Thana- PURNEA SADAR District- Purnia
======================================================
NITISH KUMAR BHARTI @ NITISH KUMAR S/O PRAMOD KUMAR
SINGH @ PRAMOD YADAV R/V Vill.- GHARARI, WARD NO.- 10, P.S-
MIRGANJ, DIST- PURNEA
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kanhiya Kishor, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 30 litres of liquor from the house of Sarup Lal
Pandit.
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 even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
and he came to be implicated based on the confessional
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27260 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
statement of Sarup Lal Pandi 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.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 Sadar P.S. Case
No. 114 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 even one case,
it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27260 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…