Patna High Court
Sanjay MukhiyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to bond, sureties and verification of antecedents, under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioners, a husband and three wives, applied for anticipatory bail after a case was registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act alleging recovery of 25 litres of liquor from their joint family house and a paddy field. They argued they have clean antecedents, the liquor was not in their conscious possession, and the concept of deemed possession was abolished after the 2018 amendment. The State opposed the bail, contending the prosecution’s case was valid. The Court, considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.500 bond with two sureties and directed verification of the petitioners’ criminal antecedents. The order is subject to confirmation if the petitioners are found to have a clean record, otherwise it will not be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act where alleged possession is not in conscious possession.
- Whether the abolition of the concept of deemed possession after the 2018 amendment affects the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the non‑disclosure of the informant in the FIR undermines the prosecution.
- Whether the conditions prescribed under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. are satisfied for granting provisional anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- liquor possession
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
- clean antecedent
- joint family property
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- deemed possession
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90614 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-294 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Sanjay Mukhiya S/O Bhabhikhan Mukhiya Resident of Village- Hathiyahi,
Ward No. 10, P.S.- Piprakothi, District- East Champaran.
2. Shikila Devi Wife of Sanjay Mukhiya, Resident of Village- Hathiyahi, Ward
No. 10, P.S.- Piprakothi, District- East Champaran.
3. Sushila Devi Wife of Prem Mukhiya Resident of Village- Hathiyahi, Ward
No. 10, P.S.- Piprakothi, District- East Champaran.
4. Sangeeta Devi Wife of Nandu Mukhiya Resident of Village- Hathiyahi,
Ward No. 10, P.S.- Piprakothi, District- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Karandeep Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammed Arif
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner
no.2, 3 and 4 are women and allegation is of recovery of 25
litres of liquor from the house of the petitioners and a paddy
field. It is next submitted that petitioners were not arrested from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90614 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
2/3
the spot as such nothing was recovered from their conscious
possession and the house in question is a joint family property
as such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it were
petitioners, who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor
kept in the house was within their 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 they came to be implicated at the instance of local
person 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 when petitioners
admittedly are persons with clean antecedent.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
5. 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 from today, be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90614 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
3/3
Piprakothi P.S. Case No.294/2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial court
thereafter shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioners
and in the event if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of
even one case, in that event, it would be presumed that
petitioners had concealed their antecedent before this court, as
such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed with but if after verification it is found that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent, in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…