Patna High Court
Dinanath Majhi @ Dinanath ManjhiversusThe 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 antecedent, with the order to be confirmed only if he is found to have a clean record.
Summary
The petitioner, Dinanath Majhi, sought anticipatory bail after learning that a case had been registered against him under Sections 30(a), 32 and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for allegedly possessing 50 litres of liquor recovered from his house, which is a joint family property. He argued that he had no conscious possession, that the liquor could belong to other family members, and that the allegation stemmed from a hostile watchman, not from any proven act. He also highlighted that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail, contending that the FIR established sufficient grounds for arrest. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.500 bond with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent by the trial court; if any antecedent is found, the bail would not be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in view of the alleged possession of liquor under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the concept of deemed possession applies after the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of conscious possession justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a), 32, 41(1)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 438 CrPC
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
- excise law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37621 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2025 Thana- LAKHAURA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Dinanath Majhi @ Dinanath Manjhi S/o Ramnath Majhi Resident of village-
Barwa Musahari Tola, P.S.- Lakhaura, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, 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 30(a), 32
and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 50 litres of liquor 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.
5. It is further submitted 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37621 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
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 Chawkidar with whom he is on
an inimical term. It is also submitted that if the Chawkidar was
aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence
then why he did not inform the police prior to the institution of
the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the
prosecution.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
7. 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.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 Lakhaura P.S. Case
No. 56 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
8. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37621 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even 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 is a person with clean antecedent 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.