Patna High Court
Ramesh Mahto @ Bachkun MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail was granted, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent and compliance with the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramesh Mahto, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly possessing 4.350 litres of liquor found in a washroom of his joint family house. He argued that the liquor was not in his conscious possession, that the property is jointly owned, and that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The petitioner, with a clean antecedent, sought anticipatory bail, while the State opposed it. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties, and directed the trial court to verify his antecedent. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would be presumed concealed and could be revoked; otherwise, the provisional bail would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act where possession is not proven.
- Whether the 2018 amendment removing deemed possession and presumed offender concepts affects the petitioner’s liability.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent is a condition for confirming anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- possession
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28859 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2026 Thana- SIMRI District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Ramesh Mahto @ Bachkun Mahto S/o Rajkumar Mahto Resident of Village -
Shobhan, Police Station - Simri, District - Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nilendu Kumar Choudhary
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Madan Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-04-2026 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 Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 4.350 litres of liquor from a place outside the
washroom situated at the backyard of the house of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and the house in
question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged
with certainty that it was petitioner who had kept the liquor in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28859 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
2/3
the house or the liquor kept in the house was within knowledge
of the petitioner. 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 and
he came to be implicated at the instance of Chowkidar with
whom he is on an inimical term. It is further submitted that if
Chowkidar was aware about the involvement of the petitioner in
the occurrence, then why he did not inform the police prior to
institution of the instant FIR, which casts an aspersion on the
case of the prosecution.
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 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 Simri P.S. Case No. 14 of 2026 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28859 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
3/3
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case
then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this
Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed, but after verification if 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)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…