Patna High Court
Manoj SardarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedent and compliance with the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
Manoj Sardar, a resident of Hasanpur, sought anticipatory bail after the police registered a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly recovering 42 litres of liquor from his joint‑family house. The petitioner argued that he had no conscious possession of the liquor, that the house is a joint family property, and that the allegation was based solely on the testimony of a chowkidar and a local person, with no direct evidence linking him to the contraband. He also highlighted his clean criminal antecedent and contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail, asserting that the prosecution’s case was sufficient. The Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a modest bond, two sureties, and a condition that the trial court verify the petitioner’s antecedent before confirming the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act where no conscious possession is established.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Excise Act eliminates the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender for the purpose of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent warrants the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Bihar Negotiable Sale and Settlement Act (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- Section 30
- Section 482
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34802 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2026 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
Manoj Sardar S/o Ramdev Sardar R/o Village- Hasanpur Ward No.2, P.S-
Chhatapur, Dist- Supau.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Umanath Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 25-06-2026 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
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 42 liters of liquor from house of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended 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 it was petitioner who had kept the liquor in
the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34802 of 2026(3) dt.25-06-2026
2/3
knowledge and 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 at the
instance of Chowkidar and local person, but then it is submitted
that it does not appear probable that Chowkidar and local person
would have known who had concealed the liquor in the house. It
is also submitted that if Chowkidar and local person were aware
of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence then why
they did not inform the police prior to institution of the instant
FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
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 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) 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
Chhatapur P.S. Case No. 31 of 2026 subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34802 of 2026(3) dt.25-06-2026
3/3
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
antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.