Patna High Court
Rahul Manjhi @ Tanka ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, subject to bond, sureties and verification of antecedents.
Summary
Petitioner Rahul Manjhi applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for allegedly possessing 8 litres of liquor. He argued that he was not arrested, no liquor was found in his conscious possession, and the house is a joint family property, making it uncertain that he stored the liquor. He further contended that the amendment to the Excise Act, 2018, abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, and that the case was based solely on secret information. 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 and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, with the bail to be confirmed only if he has no more than one prior case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC for an offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act where no possession is established.
- Whether the amendment to the Excise Act, 2018, removing deemed possession affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38498 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2025 Thana- ATRI District- Gaya
======================================================
Rahul Manjhi @ Tanka Manjhi S/o Jitan Manjhi R/o Village- Upthu, P.S-
Atri, Dist- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Durgesh Nandan
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad- A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of
recovery of 08 litres of liquor from house of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even the house in
question is a joint family property and thus, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38498 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
2/3
knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the
concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been
done away with and he came to be implicated based on secret
information which is the easiest way to implicate someone
without holding a proper investigation.
5. Learned A.P.P. Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad
opposes the anticipatory bail application.
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 Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum 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 Atri P. S. Case No.98 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is
found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case, then
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38498 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
3/3
it would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed his antecedent before
this Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail
order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found
that petitioner has antecedent of only one case, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.