Patna High Court
Subham KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Subham Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018‑2022, alleging recovery of 90 litres of liquor from a car. He argued that he was not in possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicle, and that the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by Kanhaiya Kumar while in police custody, which he claimed lacks evidentiary value. The petitioner also contended 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 Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and conditioned the order on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents; if a clean antecedent is confirmed, the bail will be finalized, otherwise it may be revoked. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the alleged offender does not have conscious possession of the seized liquor.
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody, without corroboration, can form the basis for anticipatory bail denial.
- Whether the amendment to the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018‑2022, eliminating deemed possession, affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018/2022 — s. 30(a), 32(2)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- possession
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- Section 438 CrPC
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- deemed possession
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29745 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-376 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Subham Kumar S/o- Sakaldeep Paswan @ Sakaldip Paswan R/v- Donak
Chowk Road, Prabhat Colony PS - K.Hat District- Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Iftekhar Mahmood, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 05-05-2026 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 30(a) and
32(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act,
2018-2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 90 litres of liquor from a car.
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 Kanhaiya
Kumar in police custody which does not have any evidentiary
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29745 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026
2/3
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.
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.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 Madya Nisedh P.S.
Case No. 376 of 2026 giving rise to Special Case No. 380 of
2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
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 even one case,
it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29745 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026
3/3
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.