Patna High Court
Vikash KumarversusThe state of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the petitioners’ antecedents and compliance with the stipulated bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Vikash Kumar and Prakash Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, where 244.15 litres of liquor was allegedly recovered from their jointly‑owned house. They argued that the liquor was not in their conscious possession, the property is a joint family house, and the amended Act had done away with the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., directing verification of the petitioners’ criminal antecedents. If more than one prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if only one prior case, the bail will be confirmed. The order is conditional and remains subject to the trial court’s verification.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for an offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 when the alleged liquor was not in the petitioners’ conscious possession.
- Whether the joint family nature of the property and the removal of the deemed‑possession concept affect the bail decision.
- Whether the petitioners’ prior criminal antecedents should influence the confirmation of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 — s. 30(a)
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- possession
- joint family property
- excise law
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38955 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-241 Year-2026 Thana- AURANGABAD TOWN District-
Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Vikash Kumar S/o Ramashray Singh @ Ramashray Yadav @ Nanhak Yadav
R/o Village- Ramdiha, P.S- Aurangabad, Town, Dist- Aurangabad
2. Prakash Kumar S/o Ramashray Singh @ Ramashray Yadav @ Nanhak
Yadav R/o Village- Ramdiha, P.S- Aurangabad, Town, Dist- Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The state of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act
and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of one case and allegation is
of recovery of 244.15 litres of liquor from the house of the
petitioners as detailed in the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38955 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
2/3
submitted that the house in question is a joint family property, as
such, it cannot be alleged with certainty that it were the
petitioners who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor
kept in the house was within their 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 petitioners came to be implicated
at the instance of the local person but then it is submitted that it
does not appear probable that local person would have known
who had concealed the liquor in the house or else they would
have informed the police prior to the institution of the instant
FIR.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, let the
petitioners, above-named, in the event of their 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) each 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38955 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
3/3
with Aurangabad (Town) P.S. Case No. 241 of 2026, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners
and if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of more than
one case, it would be presumed that petitioners had concealed
their 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
petitioners have 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.