Patna High Court
Rohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to verification of antecedents and compliance with Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Summary
The petitioners, Rohit Kumar and Anjan Singh, applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act concerning the alleged recovery of 30.240 litres of liquor from a house that does not belong to them. They argued that they were not arrested at the spot, no liquor was found in their possession, and the only evidence was a confessional statement of Yogendra Rishidev made in police custody, which they claimed lacks evidentiary value. They further contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act has abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender, weakening the prosecution's case. The State opposed the bail, but the Court, applying Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.20,000 with two sureties and a six‑week surrender period, pending verification of the petitioners' criminal antecedents. The order conditions that if the verification reveals more than the disclosed antecedents, the bail will not be confirmed; otherwise, it will be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the alleged offence under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act is based on alleged possession that is not in the petitioners' conscious control.
- Whether the 2018 amendment removing the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether a confessional statement made by a co‑accused in police custody can be relied upon for bail considerations.
- Whether the petitioners' criminal antecedents influence the suitability of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Excise Act
- Section 30
- deemed possession
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- Section 438
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85453 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2025 Thana- BARHARA KOTHI District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Rohit Kumar S/O Sudhir Kumar R/O Maldiha, P.S- Barhara Kothi, Purnea
Bihar.
2. Anjan Singh @ Nepal Singh S/O Late Dhirendra Prasad Singh R/O Maldiha,
P.S- Barhara Kothi, Purnea Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shashank Shekhar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sucheta Yadav
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 28-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the defects as pointed out by the office shall be removed during
course of the day.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 30(a) of the Excise Act.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioner no.1 has antecedent of four cases and petitioner
no.2 is a person with clean antecedent and the allegation is of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85453 of 2025(4) dt.28-04-2026
2/3
recovery of 30.240 litres of liquor from house of Yogendra
Rishidev.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and even alleged
recovery is from a house, which does not belong to the
petitioner and he came to be implicated based on confessional
statement of Yogendra in police custody, which does not have
any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that after Amendment
in the Excise Act, 2018, the concept of deemed possession and
presumed offender has been done away with.
7. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in
the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) 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 Excise Act Barhara Kothi P. S. Case No.184
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85453 of 2025(4) dt.28-04-2026
3/3
of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
9. The application stands allowed.
10. It is made clear that the learned trial Court
after accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioners shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event,
if it is found that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of more than
four cases and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of even one case,
then it would be presumed that petitioners for the purposes of
obtaining anticipatory bail had concealed their antecedent
before this Court, in that event, the present provisional
anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but if on
verification, it is found that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of
four cases only and petitioner no.2 is a persons with clean
antecedent, in that event, the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…