Patna High Court
Rishikesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting provisional bail subject to conditions and verification of antecedents.
Summary
Petitioners Rishikesh Kumar and Amresh Kumar applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case registered for offences under Section 111 of the B.N.S. and Section 30(a) of the Excise Act, alleging that 270 litres of liquor were recovered from a Maruti Suzuki car. They contended that they were not in possession of the vehicle, were not the owners, and that the sole incriminating material was a confessional statement made by Shiv Shankar in police custody, which they argued had no evidentiary value, especially after the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act that removed the concept of deemed possession. The State opposed the anticipatory bail. The court granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that each petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs 30,000 with two sureties, and that they surrender within six weeks. The order is subject to verification of their criminal antecedents; if the antecedent count exceeds the disclosed numbers, the bail will not be confirmed. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. despite the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents and alleged involvement in excise offences.
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody, without corroboration, can be relied upon to deny anticipatory bail.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act removing the doctrine of deemed possession on the bail application.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 111
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- confessional statement
- deemed possession
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28263 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2026 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. Rishikesh Kumar S/o Suresh Singh Resident of Village - Bariyarpur P.S. and
District -Sitamarhi.
2. Amresh Kumar @ Bhola S/o Ram Dular Ray Resident of Village -
Bariyarpur P.S. and District -Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Birendra Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 29-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 111 of the B.N.S. and Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioner no.1 has antecedent of six cases out of which four
cases are under the Excise Act and petitioner no.2 has
antecedent of five cases out of which two cases are under the
Excise Act and the allegation is of recovery of 270 litres of
liquor from a Maruti suzuki car.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28263 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and are not the
owners of the seized vehicle and he came to be implicated based
on confessional statement of Shiv Shankar in police custody,
which does not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted
that after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the concept of
deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away
with. It is next submitted that police in majority of cases
implicating innocent persons either at the behest of Chaukidar,
local person, secret information and confessional statement in a
mechanical manner 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 petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in
the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each 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 Sonbarsa P. S. Case No.77 of 2026, subject to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28263 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
3/3
the 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 petitioners shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event,
if it is found that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of more than six
and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of more than five cases, then
it would be presumed that petitioners for the purposes of
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed their 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 no.1 has antecedent of six
cases only and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of five cases only,
in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…