Patna High Court
Jitendra DhangarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Dhangar, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in anticipation of arrest for an alleged offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act involving the recovery of 5.220 litres of liquor from his residence. He argued that he was not arrested on the spot, that the liquor was not in his conscious possession, and that the house is a joint family property, making it uncertain that he had knowledge of the liquor. He further contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, and that the case was based solely on secret information without proper investigation. The State opposed the anticipatory bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.5,000 and two sureties, and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, with the bail order to be confirmed or revoked based on that verification.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the alleged offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act is based on alleged possession in a joint family house without the accused’s conscious possession.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act, which removed the doctrine of deemed possession, precludes the issuance of anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- criminal antecedent
- Section 438 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38539 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2026 Thana- BUDDHACOLONY District- Patna
======================================================
Jitendra Dhangar S/o Late Ganga Dhangar R/o Chinakothi, Harijan Colony,
P.S.- Budhacolony, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binay Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar
======================================================
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 under the Excise Act
and allegation is of recovery of 5.220 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38539 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
2/3
in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his
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. 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 Budhacolony P. S. Case No.111 of 2026, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38539 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
3/3
found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case, then
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.