Patna High Court
Dhanji Singh @ Dhananjay SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhanji Singh, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018, where 77.760 litres of liquor were allegedly recovered from an auto. He contended that he was not arrested on the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, was not the vehicle's owner, and was implicated solely on confessional statements of co‑accused Manoj Kumar and Abhijeet, which he argued lack evidentiary value. He further submitted that the 2018 amendment abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, and that the police had mechanically implicated him without proper investigation. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs.45,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent; if more than nine prior cases are found, the bail would not be confirmed, otherwise it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving alleged excise offences?
- Do confessional statements of co‑accused, made while in police custody, have evidentiary value for implicating the petitioner?
- Has the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act eliminated the doctrines of deemed possession and presumed offender for the purpose of bail considerations?
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- confessional statements
- criminal antecedent
- Section 438 CrPC
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28236 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Saran
======================================================
Dhanji Singh @ Dhananjay Singh Son of Gopalji Singh @ Gopal Singh R/o
Village - Badka Baiju Tola, P.S. - Rivilganj, Dist. - Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-04-2026 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 Sections 30(a) and
32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act,
2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of nine cases out of which eight cases
are under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 77.760
litres of liquor from an auto.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted
that petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and came to
be implicated based on the confessional statement of Manoj
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28236 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
2/3
Kumar and Abhijeet in police custody which does not have any
evidentiary value in the eye of law. It is next 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. It is also submitted that once an accused is implicated in a
case relating to excise the police start implicating mechanically
either at the instance of the Chawkidar, local person,
confessional statement or secret information without holding a
proper investigation of the case.
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.45,000/-
(Rupees Forty-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 Sadar
Excise P.S. Case No. 105 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the
B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28236 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
3/3
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 more than nine
cases, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner has antecedent of only nine cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…