Patna High Court
Munna 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 antecedents.
Summary
Munna Kumar, a resident of West Champaran, feared arrest in a case registered under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly recovering 620.82 litres of liquor from a pickup vehicle. He contended that he was not the owner of the vehicle, the liquor was not found in his conscious possession, and the only link to him was a confessional statement made by a co‑accused, Pradeep, while in police custody, which he argued lacked evidentiary value. The petitioner also submitted 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 High Court, after considering the submissions, ordered provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing bail bonds and sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents by the trial court. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed, whereas a clean record would lead to immediate confirmation of the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of alleged possession of liquor.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act eliminates the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28781 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2026 Thana- Bijdhari District- East Champaran
======================================================
Munna Kumar Son of Yogendra Prasad Kushwaha Resident of Village -
Laxmipur, P.S.- Nautan, District - West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 29-04-2026 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 offence punishable under Sections 30(a) and
41(1) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 620.82 litres of liquor from a pick up 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 the seized vehicle and he came to be implicated
based on confessional statement of Pradeep 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 deemed possession and presumed offender has been
done away with.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28781 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
2/2
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, 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.500/- (Rupees five hundred) 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 Bijdhari
P.S. Case No.24/2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case,
in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed
his antecedent before this court, as such, the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if on verification
it is found that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, in that
event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…