Patna High Court
Surendra GoswamiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court held that, notwithstanding the allegations, the petitioner is entitled to provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of his antecedent and compliance with conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Surendra Goswami, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly possessing 45 litres of liquor and 225 litres of fermented jawa mahua recovered from his house, which were destroyed on the spot. He contended that he had a clean antecedent, that the liquor was not in his conscious possession, and that the house was joint family property, making it uncertain whether he knew of the liquor. He also argued that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the concept of deemed possession and that the informant’s identity was omitted from the FIR. The State opposed his prayer for anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties and directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is found, the bail would not be confirmed, but if the petitioner is found to have a clean record, the provisional bail would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act when the alleged liquor is not in the accused's conscious possession and the premises are joint family property.
- Whether the 2018 amendment removing the concept of deemed possession affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the trial court must verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent before confirming the provisional anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- Section 30
- Bihar Excise Act
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84462 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-239 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Arwal
======================================================
Surendra Goswami S/o- Late Kamat Goswami Resident Of Village- Walidad
Ward No 4, Ps- Mahendiya, Dist- Arwal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nityanand Neeraj
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 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 the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 45 litres of liquor from the house of the petitioner
along with 225 litres of fermented jawa mahua, which was
destroyed at the spot.
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 after 2018
amendment in the Excise Act, the concept of deemed possession
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84462 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
and presumed offender has been done away with. It is next
submitted that 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 knowledge of the petitioner. It is further
submitted that he came to be implicated at the instance of local
people, but then the name of the person, who disclosed the name
of the petitioner is not disclosed in the 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 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 Arwal Excise P.S. Case No. 239 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 in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84462 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
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)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…