Patna High Court
Balram SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted where the petitioner has no proven possession and a clean antecedent, subject to verification and the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
Balram Singh applied for anticipatory bail in a case alleging violation of Section 30(a) of the Excise Act and Sections 351(2) and 351(3) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act for the alleged recovery of nine litres of liquor from his joint family house. The petitioner argued that he has a clean antecedent, that the liquor was not in his conscious possession, and that the concept of deemed possession was abolished by the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act. The State opposed the bail, contending that the offences are non‑bailable. The High Court, considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500 each with two sureties, subject to verification of his antecedent and compliance with Section 438(2) of the BNSS. The court further stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed, whereas a clean record would lead to immediate confirmation. The application was allowed, and the petitioner undertook to deposit Rs.1,500 with the Lawyers’ Association.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged possession of liquor under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act and Sections 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNSS.
- Whether the doctrine of deemed possession applies after the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean criminal antecedent warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 351(2), 351(3), 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
- Section 438
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4541 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-287 Year-2025 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria
======================================================
Balram Singh Son of Shayam Sundar Singh R/o Village - Marach, Ward No.
11, P.S. - Chautham, Distt. - Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chandan Kumar Kashyap
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ramchandra Sahni
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 31-01-2026 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 and Sections 351(2) and 351(3)
of the B.N.S.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 09 litres of liquor from the 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4541 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
2/3
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 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 at the instance of
Chaukidar with whom he is on an inimical term. It is further
submitted that if Chaukidar was aware of the involvement of the
petitioners in the occurrence, then why he did not inform the
police prior to institution of the present F.I.R., which casts an
aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
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.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
Chautham P. S. Case No.287 of 2025, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 438(2) of the BNSS.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4541 of 2026(2) dt.31-01-2026
3/3
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 even 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 is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
9. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner based on instruction submits that
petitioner undertakes to deposit an amount of Rs.1500/- with
Lawyers’ Association, Patna High Court, Patna within a period
of two weeks from today.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…