Patna High Court
Santosh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.
Summary
Santosh Kumar applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under several IPC offences (sections 414, 467, 468, 471, 420/34) and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018. He contended that he was not caught in possession of the alleged liquor, was not the owner of the seized vehicles, and that the prosecution’s case relied on a confessional statement of another accused, which he argued lacks evidentiary value. He further submitted that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, rendering the police’s mechanical implication of him improper. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.20,000 bond with two sureties, directing the trial court to verify his criminal antecedent; if more than four prior cases are found, the bail will not be confirmed, otherwise it will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious IPC and Excise offences alleged.
- Whether the confessional statement of another accused can be the basis for implicating the petitioner.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act on the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent (four prior cases) warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 414, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- IPC offences
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28895 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2021 Thana- UJIYARPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Santosh Kumar S/o Sitaram Yadav @ Baba Resident of Village - Sultanganj,
P.S. - Bahadurpur, Dist. - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 04-05-2026 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 414, 467,
468, 471 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section
30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act,
2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of four cases out of which one case is
under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 2652.28
litres of liquor from a Tata Magic and a Truck.
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 any of the seized vehicles and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28895 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
2/3
came to be implicated based on the confessional statement of
apprehended accused 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.20,000/-
(Rupees Twenty 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 Ujiyarpur P.S.
Case No. 90 of 2021, 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.28895 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
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 four
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 four cases in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…