Patna High Court
Santosh MukhiyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, pending verification of his antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Santosh Mukhiya, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of 14.975 litres of liquor, of which 2.6 litres were said to have been found in his house, a joint‑family property. He argued that no liquor was seized from his conscious possession, the house being a joint family asset, and that the only basis for the case was a confessional statement made by a co‑accused in police custody, which he claimed lacked evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations warranted prosecution. The Court, noting the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the absence of direct possession, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a modest bond, two sureties and verification of his antecedents by the trial court. The order further stipulated that if any prior criminal case is discovered, the bail would be revoked, otherwise it would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances.
- Whether the amendment to the Bihar Excise Act in 2018 has abolished the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender.
- Whether a confessional statement made by a co‑accused in police custody can form the basis for arrest.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- possession
- joint family property
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84615 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-153 Year-2025 Thana- SINDHIYA District- Samastipur
======================================================
Santosh Mukhiya Son of Late Jaykant Mukhiya Resident of Village-
Phulhara, P.S.- Singhiya, District- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rani Shashi Bharti, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 19-01-2026 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 14.975 liters of liquor from three different places
out of which 2.6 liters of liquor is alleged to have been
recovered 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84615 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026
2/3
with certainty that it was 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 in the year
2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender
has been done away with and petitioner came to be implicated
based on confessional statement of Pankaj in police custody
which does not have any evidentiary value.
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 Sindhiya
P.S. Case No. 153 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 event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84615 of 2025(3) dt.19-01-2026
3/3
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…