Patna High Court
Indrajeet Mukhiya @ Indrajit Mukhiya @ IndrajitversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court ordered the release of the petitioner on bail.
Summary
Indrajeet Mukhiya was charged under Section 414 of the IPC and Sections 30(a), 35 and 38 of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged possession of 9 litres of liquor recovered from a joint family house and the seizure of three motorcycles. The petitioner, who has 19 prior excise cases, argued that he was not arrested on the spot, no liquor was found in his conscious possession, and that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, making the charge based on secret information. The State opposed bail, contending the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s criminal history. The court considered the lack of direct possession, the joint family ownership of the house, and the statutory amendment, and decided to grant bail on a bond of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties. The bail order was issued by Justice Satyavrat Verma.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the accused is alleged to have possessed liquor in a joint family house without conscious possession.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Excise Act, which removed the doctrine of deemed possession, affects the bail decision.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior excise cases and the seizure of motorcycles justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a), 35, 38
- Indian Penal Code — s. 414
Subjects
- bail
- excise law
- possession of liquor
- joint family property
- deemed possession
- criminal procedure
- Section 414 IPC
- Bihar Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32785 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-239 Year-2019 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Indrajeet Mukhiya @ Indrajit Mukhiya @ Indrajit S/o- Lalbahadur Mukhiya
R/v- Koergawa Bi Toli Ps- Sangrampur Dist- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhishek Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Syed Mojibur Rahman
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Section 414 of IPC and Sections 30(a), 35
and 38 of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of nineteen cases under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 55 litres of liquor from the house of 16
accused persons including the petitioner, out of which 9 litres of
liquor was recovered from the house of the petitioner and 3
motorcycles were seized.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32785 of 2026(2) dt.15-05-2026
2/2
it was petitioner who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor
kept in the house was within knowledge of the petitioner. 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 he came to be implicated based on secret
information which is the easiest way to implicate someone without
holding a proper investigation. It is further submitted that once an
accused is implicated in a case relating to excise, the police starts
implicating mechanically either at the instance of Chowkidar, local
person, confessional statement or secret information without holding
a proper investigation. It is also submitted that petitioner is in
custody since 9-1-2026.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submission made by learned counsel
for the petitioner, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail
on furnishing bail bond 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 Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 239 of 2019.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.