Patna High Court
Nageshwar ManjhiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered provisional anticipatory bail for the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedent and compliance with bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Nageshwar Manjhi, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 for alleged possession of liquor recovered from courtyards of his own and two other family members. He argued that the liquor was not in his conscious possession, the property is a joint family house, and that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties of the same amount, and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedent. If any antecedent is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if he is found to have a clean record, the bail will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case of alleged possession of liquor under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender applies post‑2018 amendment of the Excise Act.
- Whether joint family ownership of the property negates a presumption of possession against the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent warrants the grant 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
- liquor
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
- Section 30(a)
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41761 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-356 Year-2025 Thana- NARDIGANJ District- Nawada
======================================================
Nageshwar Manjhi, Son of Bulak Manjhi, Resident of Village Masaudha
Musahari, P.S. Nardiganj, District Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Sarita Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Shakir Ahmad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-06-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 8 litres of liquor from courtyard of petitioner, 9
litres of liquor from courtyard of Ajay Manjhi and 4 litres of
liquor from courtyard of Mohan Manjhi.
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
that the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it
cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41761 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
2/3
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 Chawkidar but then it is submitted that it does not appear
probable that Chawkidar would have known who had concealed
the liquor in the courtyard.
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.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 Nardiganj P.S.
Case No. 356 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.
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41761 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
3/3
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.