Patna High Court
Mahesh Paswan @ Mahesh HajraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, with confirmation contingent on the outcome of that verification.
Summary
Mahesh Paswan applied for anticipatory bail in a case alleging offences under IPC sections 272, 273 and 34 and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (sections 30(a), 38(1) and 41(1). The prosecution alleged that liquor was recovered from a motorcycle and from a house that is part of a joint family, with 7 litres said to belong to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that no liquor was found in his conscious possession, that the joint‑family nature of the house precludes certainty of his knowledge, and that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the doctrine of deemed possession. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.5,000 bond with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents; if more than one prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed, otherwise it will be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite allegations of possession of liquor under the Excise Act and IPC.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act eliminates the concept of deemed possession, affecting bail considerations.
- Whether the absence of liquor in the petitioner’s conscious possession and the joint‑family status of the house negate the prosecution’s case for denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 38(1), 41(1)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 272, 273, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- liquor seizure
- IPC
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37569 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2019 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran
======================================================
Mahesh Paswan @ Mahesh Hajra Son of Late Raghunath Paswan Resident of
village- Shyampur Kotraha PS- Nautan District -West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 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 Sections 272, 273
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 30(a), 38(1)
and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 2 litres of liquor from a motorcycle
and 26.6 litres of liquor from the house of different accused
persons out of which 7 liters of liquor is alleged to have been
recovered from the house of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37569 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
that the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it
cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who
had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house
was within his 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. It is next
submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of
the local person but then the name of the person who disclosed
the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the 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 appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let 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.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 Nautan P.S. Case
No. 106 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37569 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one
case, it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner has antecedent of only one case in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.