Patna High Court
Amarjeet Ram @ Amarjeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that, in view of the amendment removing deemed possession and the petitioners’ clean antecedent, provisional anticipatory bail could be granted subject to verification of antecedent and compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Summary
Amarjeet Ram and Shambhu Ram were implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of liquor from their residences, which are part of a joint family property. The petitioners, who have no prior criminal record, argued that the liquor was not in their conscious possession and that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the concept of deemed possession. They sought anticipatory bail, contending that the investigation was based on secret information and lacked proper proof of their knowledge of the liquor. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, considering the clean antecedent of the petitioners and the statutory amendment, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a modest bond, sureties, and verification of any criminal antecedent, with the order to be confirmed if the petitioners are found to have no prior cases. The petitioners were also directed to deposit a sum with the Advocates’ Association as part of the conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when alleged possession of liquor is not in conscious possession and the concept of deemed possession has been removed by amendment.
- Whether the fact that the liquor was found in a joint family house can be attributed to the individual petitioners for the purpose of bail.
- Whether the conditions prescribed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS are satisfied for granting provisional anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- possession
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
- Section 30
- Bihar Excise Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3411 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-181 Year-2025 Thana- EXCISE ROSERA District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Amarjeet Ram @ Amarjeet Kumar S/o Late Sone Lal Ram Resident of
Village- Rupauli, PS- Vibhutipur, District- Samastipur
2. Shambhu Ram @ Shambhu Kumar Ram @ Shamhu Kumar Ram S/o Hari
Kishun Ram Resident of Village- Rupauli, PS- Vibhutipur, District-
Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shashank Shekhar
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Sucheta Yadav
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 29-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and
30(c) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 55 litres of liquor from different places out of which
2 litres of liquor is alleged to have been recovered from the
house of petitioner no. 1 and 10 litres of liquor is alleged to have
been recovered from the house of petitioner no. 2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3411 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026
2/3
petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and after 2018
amendment in the Excise Act, the concept of deemed possession
and presumed offender has been done away with. It is next
submitted that the house in question is a joint family property as
such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it were petitioners
who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the
house was within knowledge of the petitioners and they came to
be implicated based on secret information which is the easiest
way to implicate someone without holding a proper
investigation, when petitioners admittedly are persons with
clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
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 trial court
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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 Rosera
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3411 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026
3/3
Excise P.S. Case No. 181 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the
event if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of even one
case then it would be presumed that petitioners, for the purposes of
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed their antecedent before
this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not
be confirmed with respect to that petitioner who had concealed his
criminal antecedent before this Court, but after verification if it is
found that petitioners are person with clean antecedent in that
event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed
forthwith.
8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners
based on instruction submits that petitioners undertake to deposit
an amount of Rs. 1,500/- with Advocates’ Association, Patna High
Court within a period of two weeks from today.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…