Patna High Court
Ankit YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of his criminal antecedent, with confirmation contingent on the antecedent being limited to a single prior case.
Summary
The petitioner, Ankit Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of 32.8 litres of liquor from a scooty. He argued that he was not apprehended at the spot, had no conscious possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicle, and that the confessional statement of a co-accused obtained in police custody lacked evidentiary value. The petitioner also contended that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act had abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail, asserting the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.5,000 bond, two sureties, and a condition that the trial court verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent within six weeks, with the bail to be confirmed only if the antecedent is limited to a single prior case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Excise Act eliminates the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender for bail considerations.
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody has evidentiary value for the purpose of denying anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of conscious possession and ownership of the seized vehicle precludes liability.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- confessional statement
- provisional bail
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9056 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-263 Year-2025 Thana- HATHUA District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Ankit Yadav S/O Rajdev Yadav R/O Village- Chhotaka Hathua, P.S.- Hathua,
Dist.- Gopalganj, State- Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Priya Raj
For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Iftekhar Mahmood
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 28-04-2026 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 Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the defect, as pointed out by the office, stands removed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act and
allegation is of recovery of 32.8 liters of liquor from a Scooty.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing
was recovered from his conscious possession and is not the
owner of the seized Scooty and came to be implicated based on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9056 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
2/3
confessional statement of Rahul 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.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
7. 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.
5000/- (Rupees Five 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 Hathua
P.S. Case No. 263 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
8. 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 one case then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the
purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9056 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
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 one
case only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…