Patna High Court
Prabhu MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court ordered provisional anticipatory bail for the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of his criminal antecedent.
Summary
Petitioner Prabhu Mahto feared arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act alleging recovery of 125 litres of liquor near his farm. He argued he had a clean antecedent, the alleged liquor was not in his possession, and the case was based solely on a confessional statement made by Sanjay while in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The petitioner also contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a modest bond and two sureties, directing the trial court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent and conditionally confirm the bail if no prior case is found.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the amendment to the Bihar Excise Act in 2018 eliminates the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender, affecting bail considerations.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused made in police custody can be the sole basis for arrest.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- confessional statement
- provisional bail
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32962 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2026 Thana- SAHODARA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Prabhu Mahto S/O Baidnath Mahto R/O Village- Kamta Farm, P.S- Sahodar,
Distt.- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sarvesh Kashyap
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rana Randhir Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 14-05-2026 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 the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 125 litres of liquor from a place near Kamta farm.
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 even the alleged
recovery is from a place which does not belong to the petitioner
and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of
Sanjay in police custody which does not have any evidentiary
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32962 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
2/3
value. 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.
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 within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on Provisional anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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 Sahodra P.S. Case No 62 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 even
one case then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the
purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his
antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after
verification if it is found that petitioner is a person with clean
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32962 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
3/3
antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.