Patna High Court
Munmun KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to bond conditions and verification of antecedents, and that the amendment removing deemed possession does not preclude bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Munmun Kumar and Deepak Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act, alleging recovery of 10 litres of liquor and seizure of a motorcycle. They argued that they were not arrested at the spot, did not have conscious possession of the liquor, were not owners of the vehicle, and that the only evidence against them was a confessional statement made by a third person in police custody, which they claimed lacked evidentiary value. They further contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties each, and directed the trial court to verify the petitioners' criminal antecedents, reserving the right to cancel the bail if undisclosed antecedents are found.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody by a third person can be relied upon to deny bail.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act removing deemed possession on the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioners' criminal antecedents affect the suitability of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act, 2018 — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32161 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2026 Thana- SANJHOLI District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Munmun Kumar S/O Vijay Kumar R/O Village- Charpurwa, P.S.- Sanjhauli,
Distt.- Rohtas at Sasaram.
2. Deepak Kumar @ Nitish Kumar S/O Madan Singh R/O Chawariya, P.S.-
Sanjhauli, Distt.- Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chhote Lal Mishra
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioner no.1 has antecedent of one case and petitioner
no.2 is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 10 litres of liquor from a bush and a motorcycle was
seized.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32161 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
recovered from their conscious possession and are not the owner
of the seized vehicle and they came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of Pawan in police 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.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in
the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each 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 Sanjhauli P. S. Case No.39 of 2026, subject to
the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioners shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32161 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
if it is found that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of more than
one case and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of even one case,
then it would be presumed that petitioners for the purposes of
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed their 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 no.1 has antecedent of one
case only and petitioner no.2 is a person with clean antecedent,
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.