Patna High Court
Rajesh Rai @ Rajesh Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to a bond of Rs.25,000 and two sureties, with the trial court empowered to cancel the bail if the petitioner attempts to delay the framing of charge or the trial.
Summary
Petitioner Rajesh Rai, accused under several IPC sections (272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 120(b)) and sections of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, applied for bail. He has ten prior cases, one involving alleged recovery of 1,845 litres of liquor, but was not arrested at the scene and no seized vehicle was found in his possession. The prosecution’s case relies on a confessional statement made by a co‑accused in police custody, which the petitioner contends lacks evidentiary value, especially after the 2018 amendment that abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The petitioner argued that he would not abscond and would cooperate with the trial. The State opposed bail. The court, after considering the submissions, granted bail on a bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, subject to the condition that the trial court may cancel bail if the petitioner attempts to delay charge framing or the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving serious IPC offences and excise violations.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused made in police custody is admissible and sufficient to justify denial of bail.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act removing the doctrine of deemed possession on the bail application.
- Whether the petitioner’s antecedent criminal history warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 32, 36, 41
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(b), 272, 273, 420, 467, 468
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- confessional statement
- deemed possession
- criminal procedure
- preliminary hearing
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27885 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-172 Year-2022 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Rajesh Rai @ Rajesh Kumar Yadav S/o Rambabu Yadav @ Rambabu Rai R/o
Village - Faajilpur, P.S - Rajepur, District - 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 : Ms. Pushpa Sinha.1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 272, 273, 420, 467, 468,
120(b) of the IPC and Sections 30(a), 32, 36, 41 of Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of ten cases, out of which, one case is
under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 1845 litres
of liquor from four different vehicle. It is next submitted that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of
any of the seized vehicle and he came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Ranjit 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27885 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
2/2
deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away
with and petitioner is in custody since 18.01.2026 and charge
sheet has been submitted. It is also submitted that if privilege of
bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will not abscond
rather will cooperate in the trial to prove his innocence.
4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail of the
petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty 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
Rajepur P.S. Case No.172/2022.
6. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial
court comes to a conclusion that petitioner after his release is
trying to delay the framing of charge or after framing of charge
is trying to delay the trial, in both the conditions, the learned
trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…