Patna High Court
Jokhan MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court conditionally granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of his antecedents.
Summary
Jokhan Mahto sought anticipatory bail after a FIR was lodged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act alleging recovery of liquor from his joint family house and from Munni Devi's house. The petitioner argued that he had no conscious possession of the liquor, the property is jointly owned, and the concept of deemed possession was abolished by the 2018 amendment. He also highlighted his clean antecedent and questioned why the chowkidar, who allegedly knew of his involvement, did not inform police earlier. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offence. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a modest bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s antecedents, with confirmation contingent on a clean record. The order directs the trial court to confirm the bail if no prior cases are found, 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 given the facts.
- Whether the doctrine of deemed possession applies after the 2018 amendment of the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean criminal antecedent justifies the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90944 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-328 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Jokhan Mahto S/o Late Chaturi Mahto Resident of Village- Harpur, Police
Station- 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 : Ms. Meena Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 20 litres of liquor from house of the petitioner and 6
litres of liquor from house of Munni Devi. It is next submitted
that petitioner was not arrested 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
with certainty that it was petitioner, who had kept the liquor in
the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90944 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/3
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 he came to be implicated at the
instance of chowkidar but then it is submitted that if chowkidar
was aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence
then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the
instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the
prosecution, when petitioner admittedly is a person with clean
antecedent.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
5. 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 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) 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
Piprakothi P.S. Case No.328/2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
6. It is made clear that the learned trial court thereafter
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90944 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/3
shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one
case, in that event, it would be presumed that petitioner had
concealed his antecedent before this court, as such, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if
on verification 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)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…