Patna High Court
Saroj SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Saroj Sahni, applied for anticipatory bail in a case alleging recovery of 747 litres of liquor from four motorcycles, charged under Sections 274, 275 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 30(a) of the Excise Act. He contended that he was not arrested, had no possession of the liquor, and was implicated solely on the confessional statements of co‑accused Amarjeet and Sanjay, which he argued lack evidentiary value, especially after the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act that abolished the concept of deemed possession. The State opposed the bail. The Court considered these submissions and, under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties, and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent before confirming the bail. The order also stipulated that if more than one prior case is found, the bail would not be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the allegations under the Excise Act and B.N.S.
- Whether confessional statements of co‑accused can form a basis for denying anticipatory bail
- Effect of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent on the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 274, 275, 3(5)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- Section 438 CrPC
- possession
- liquor seizure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31766 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2026 Thana- DEODHA District- Madhubani
======================================================
Saroj Sahni S/o Rambilash Sahni @ Ram Bilash Mukhiya R/o vill - Usrahi,
ward no. 4, P.S.- Deodha, Distt.- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bhavesh Kumar Sah
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 274, 275 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 30(a) of the
Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of
recovery of 747 litres of liquor from four different motorcycles.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and is not the owner of
any of the sized vehicle and he came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Amarjeet and Sanjay in police
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31766 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026
2/3
custody, which does not have any evidentiary value. It is also
submitted that after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the
concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been
done away with. It is also submitted that off late police has
started implicating accused with criminal antecedent in cases
relating to excise for obvious reason based on disclosure made
by the Chaukidar, local person, secret information and
confessional statement.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five 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 Deodha P. S. Case No.46 of 2026 arising out of G.R. Case
No.476 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31766 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026
3/3
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is
found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case, then
it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before
this Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail
order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found
that petitioner has antecedent of one case only, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.