Patna High Court
Santosh Ray @ Santosh Kumar RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and verification of his criminal antecedents.
Summary
Santosh Ray sought anticipatory bail after learning that he was implicated in a case involving offences under Sections 272, 273, 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the IPC and Sections 30(a), 36, 32 and 41 of the Bihar Excise Act. He contended that he was not arrested on the spot, no liquor was recovered from his possession, and he was not the owner of the seized vehicles, the only link being a confessional statement of a co‑accused made in police custody. The petitioner further argued that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, rendering the charge against him untenable. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a cash bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties, directing the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and conditionally confirm the bail if he has no more than two prior cases. The order also warned that if more than two antecedent cases are found, the provisional bail would not be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the serious nature of the offences alleged.
- Whether a confessional statement made by a co‑accused in police custody can be the sole basis for implicating the petitioner.
- Effect of the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Excise Act on the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 272, 273, 420, 467, 468
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- IPC offences
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8259 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-172 Year-2022 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Santosh Ray @ Santosh Kumar Ray S/O Rameshwar Ray Resident Of
Village- Saraiya, P.S- Rajepur, Distt.- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pravin Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Meena Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 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 Sections 272, 273,
420, 467 468 and 120B of IPC and Sections 30(a), 36, 32 and 41
of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of two cases out of which one case is
under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 1845 litres
of liquor from four different vehicles as detailed in the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and his not the owner
of any of the seized vehicles and he came to be implicated based
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8259 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/3
on confessional statement of Ranjeet in police custody which
does not have any evidentiary value. It is next submitted that
after amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept
of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done
away with.
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.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) 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 Rajepur
P.S. Case No. 172 of 2022 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
in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more
than two cases then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the
purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8259 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
3/3
antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after
verification if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of two
cases in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall
be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…