Patna High Court
Sudhanshu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Sudhanshu Kumar, feared arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 15 litres of liquor from a motorcycle. He argued that he was not in possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicle, and that the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by Kunal while 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 grant of anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, stating that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed, whereas confirmation would follow if only one antecedent is found.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody is admissible as evidence.
- Whether the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, removed by the 2018 amendment, affect the bail application.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents influence the confirmation of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- confessional statement
- deemed possession
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27423 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-165 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Sudhanshu Kumar S/O Anil Yadav Resident of Village Abhil Hussaina ,Ward
No.- 11, P S.- Mednichowki, District - Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh
======================================================
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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of
recovery of 15 liters of liquor from a motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing
was recovered from his conscious possession and is not the
owner of the seized vehicle and came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Kunal in police custody which does
not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27423 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/3
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 for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his 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.
5000/- (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 Excise
P.S. Case No. 165c2 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 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 seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his
antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27423 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/3
verification if 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)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…