Patna High Court
Jitendra Sahani @ Jitendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail was granted subject to a Rs 50,000 bond, two sureties and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
The Patna High Court entertained an anticipatory bail application filed by Jitendra Sahani, who was alleged to have been involved in the recovery of 47.5 litres of liquor and 2,500 litres of spirit from a house that is part of a joint family property. The petitioner, who has ten prior criminal cases, argued that no liquor was found in his conscious possession and that the concept of deemed possession under the Excise Act had been abolished by the 2018 amendment. The State opposed the bail, contending that the petitioner’s antecedent and the nature of the offence warranted denial of bail. The Court, applying Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedent. The order stipulated that if the verification reveals more than ten prior cases, the bail would be revoked; otherwise, it would be confirmed. The application was allowed, subject to these conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in view of the alleged offences under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the amendment to the Excise Act, 2018, eliminates the doctrine of deemed possession and thus affects the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent of ten cases influences the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- liquor offence
- deemed possession
- criminal antecedent
- provisional bail
- joint family property
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27814 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-633 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Jitendra Sahani @ Jitendra Kumar S/O Laxmi Sahani R/O Vill- Madhubani
Ghat, Tola- Mathiya, P.s.- Muffasil Dist.- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prateek Tandon
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-04-2026 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 ten cases and allegation is of
recovery of 47.5 litres of liquor along with 2500 litres of spirit
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.27814 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
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
villagers, but then, it is asserted and submitted that liquor and
spirit was not found from house of the petitioner rather was
recovered from a place adjacent to the house of the petitioner,
thus he came to be implicated, but then, off late police is
implicating accused having antecedent in cases relating to liquor
for obvious reason without holding a proper investigation.
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.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 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 Motihari Muffasil P. S. Case No.633 of 2025, subject to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27814 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
3/3
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
found that petitioner has antecedent of more than ten cases, 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 ten cases, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…