DEEPAK KUMARversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31920 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2026 Thana- NIRMALI District- Supaul
                 ======================================================
                 DEEPAK KUMAR Son of Late Surendra Sah Resident of Village - Nirmali,
                 Ward No. 5, Police Station - Nirmali, District - Supaul.

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Ms. Pratibha Srivastava
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   13-05-2026                   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 Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                                 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and

                   allegation is of recovery of 42 liters of liquor from house of the

                   petitioner.

                                 4. Learned     counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not apprehended 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.31920 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
                                            2/3




          the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his

          knowledge and after amendment in the excise act in the year

          2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender

          has been done away with and came to be implicated based on

          secret information which is the easiest way to implicate

          someone without holding a proper investigation.

                       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 before the learned Trial Court

          within a period of six weeks from today, be released on

          Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.

          5000/- (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 Nirmali

          P.S. Case No. 46 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

          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

          seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31920 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
                                                        3/3




                      Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be

                      confirmed, but after verification if 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)
Rishabh/-

U      T