Patna High Court
Lal Babu @ Chunnu @ Sonu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his criminal antecedent and compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Lal Babu, sought anticipatory bail after a FIR was lodged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act alleging recovery of 313.2 litres of liquor from his house, which is a joint family property. He argued that he has a clean antecedent and that the liquor was not in his conscious possession, contending that the concept of deemed possession was removed by the 2018 amendment. The State opposed the bail, asserting the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner furnish bail bonds and sureties, and that the trial court verify his criminal antecedent within six weeks. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the absence of conscious possession and the joint family nature of the property negate liability under the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, if any, affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- possession
- joint family property
- criminal antecedent
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7051 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-872 Year-2025 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali
======================================================
Lal Babu @ Chunnu @ Sonu Kumar Son of Late Suryadev Singh Resident of
Village- Chakmunni (Majhauli), P.S.- Vaishali, District- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjit Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pronoti Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-02-2026 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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 313.2 liters of liquor from house of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing
was recovered from his conscious possession and the house in
question is a joint family property, as such, it cannot be alleged
with certainty that it was petitioner who had kept the liquor in
the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7051 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
2/3
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 and he came to be implicated at the
instance of Chowkidar, but then it is submitted that if
Chowkidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the
occurrence then why he did not inform the police prior to
institution of the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the
case of the prosecution.
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 for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his 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) 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 Vaishali
P.S. Case No. 872 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial
Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7051 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
3/3
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 seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his
antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after
verification if it is found that petitioner is a person with clean
antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…