Patna High Court
Golden KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to conditions and verification of their antecedent.
Summary
Golden Kumar and his wife Puja Kumari applied for anticipatory bail after the police registered a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 alleging that 31.140 litres of liquor were recovered from their house and 25.500 litres from a Toto vehicle parked outside. The petitioners argued that they have clean antecedents, were not arrested at the spot, did not have conscious possession of the liquor, the house is joint family property and they are not owners of the vehicle, and that the only evidence is a confessional statement made by another person in police custody which is inadmissible. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warrant prosecution. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to the petitioners furnishing bail bonds and sureties, and directed the trial court to verify their antecedent before confirming the bail. The order also stipulated that if any criminal antecedent is discovered, the provisional bail would not be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners accused under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the alleged recovery of liquor establishes possession or ownership by the petitioners.
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody by a third person can be the basis for anticipatory bail denial.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- possession
- excise law
- confessional statement
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57183 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-490 Year-2025 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka
======================================================
1. Golden Kumar S/O Mohan Yadav Resident of Village- Fullidumar, P.S-
Fullidumar, District- Banka.
2. Puja Kumari W/O Golden Kumar Resident of Village- Fullidumar, P.S-
Fullidumar, District- Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Meena Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 05-01-2026 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
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner no.
2 is a woman and allegation is of recovery of 31.140 litres of
liquor from the house of the petitioners and 25.500 litres of
liquor from a Toto vehicle parked outside their house.
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.57183 of 2025(3) dt.05-01-2026
2/3
submitted that petitioners are not the owner of the seized vehicle
and 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 also submitted
that petitioners came to be implicated based on the confessional
statement of Pradeep Kumar in police custody which does not
have any evidentiary value in the eye of law.
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 for the petitioners, let the petitioners above-named, in
the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial
court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) 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 with
Amarpur (Fullidumar) P.S. Case No. 490 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57183 of 2025(3) dt.05-01-2026
3/3
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial
court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner 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…