Patna High Court
Sanoj KumarversusThe 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 antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanoj Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, alleging that liquor was recovered from a motorcycle not owned by him and that his implication rested on a confessional statement made by Karan Kumar while in police custody. He argued that the statement lacked evidentiary value and that the 2018 amendment to the Act had abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a Rs.5,000 bond with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, stipulating that the bail would be confirmed only if he has at most one prior case. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused made in police custody is admissible as evidence.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment removing deemed possession and presumed offender provisions on the case.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- confessional statement
- deemed possession
- criminal antecedent
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2) CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32006 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-305 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Nawada
======================================================
Sanoj Kumar S/o Deval Prasad Yadav @ Devender Kumar @ Devlal Yadav
R/o vill - Kumharua, P.S.- Rajauli, Dist.- Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar
======================================================
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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 3.750 litres of liquor from a
motorcycle. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested
from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious
possession and is not the owner of the seized vehicle and he came
to be implicated based on confessional statement of Karan Kumar
in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It is
also 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32006 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
2/2
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, 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.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 Excise P.S.
Case No.305/2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one
case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had
concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if on verification
it is found that petitioner has antecedent of one case, in that event
the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.