Patna High Court
Gopi SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to verification of their criminal antecedents and compliance with the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners, Gopi Sah, Garib Sah and Pushun Sah, sought anticipatory bail after a FIR was lodged under Sections 274, 275 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged possession of large quantities of liquor at their joint family house. They argued that they have clean antecedents, were not arrested at the scene, and that the liquor could not be conclusively linked to them, especially since the concept of deemed possession was removed by the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act. The prosecution opposed the bail, contending that the FIR was valid and the petitioners could be liable. The Court, applying Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and directed verification of the petitioners' criminal records. It further held that if any petitioner is found to have concealed a prior criminal case, the bail would be withdrawn for that individual, otherwise the provisional bail would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under the circumstances of the FIR.
- Whether the removal of the deemed possession concept by the 2018 amendment affects the liability of the petitioners.
- Whether the joint family nature of the property precludes attribution of possession to the petitioners.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 274, 275, 3(5)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- liquor possession
- excise law
- joint family property
- deemed possession
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31558 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2026 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Gopi Sah S/o Kailash Sah Resident of Village- Govindpur Singhara, PS-
Mahua, Distt.- Vaishali
2. Garib Sah @ Garibnath Kumar S/o Kailash Sah Resident of Village-
Govindpur Singhara, PS- Mahua, Distt.- Vaishali
3. Pushun Sah @ Pushan Kumar S/o Tuntun Sah Resident of Village-
Govindpur Singhara, PS- Mahua, Distt.- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Santosh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Khurshid Anwar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 274, 275
and 3(5) of BNS and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 73.515 litres of liquor from the house of petitioner
nos. 1 and 2 and 7.5 litres of liquor from the house of petitioner
no. 3.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31558 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026
2/3
petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and the house in
question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged
with certainty that it were petitioners who had kept the liquor in
the house or the liquor kept in the house was within knowledge
of the petitioners. 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
they came to be implicated at the instance of Chowkidar with
whom they are on an inimical term. It is next submitted that if
Chowkidar was aware about the involvement of the petitioners
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 petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their 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) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31558 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026
3/3
the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court
in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 129 of 2026, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section Section 482(2) of the
BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the
event if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of even one
case then it would be presumed that petitioners, for the purposes of
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed their antecedent before
this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not
be confirmed with respect to that petitioner who had concealed his
criminal antecedent before this Court, but after verification if it is
found that petitioners are 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…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.