Patna High Court
Santosh PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Provisional anticipatory bail was granted, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, with confirmation contingent on a clean record.
Summary
The petitioner Santosh Paswan feared arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged recovery of two litres of liquor from his house. He argued he has a clean antecedent, that the liquor was in a joint‑family house and not in his conscious possession, and that the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act abolished the doctrine of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs 500 with two sureties and conditioned on verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent by the trial court. The order further provided that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise it would be confirmed forthwith.
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 eliminated the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender
- Whether the fact that the alleged liquor was kept in a joint‑family house negates alleged possession by the petitioner
- Whether the petitioner’s clean criminal antecedent warrants the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90986 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-708 Year-2025 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Santosh Paswan S/O Sri Mangal Paswan R/O Village- Satbhidwa Ward No.
10, P.S- Majhauliya, Distt.- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sarvesh Kashyap
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Sucheta Yadav
======================================================
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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 2 litres of liquor from the house of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and after 2018
amendment in the Excise Act, the concept of deemed possession
and presumed offender has been done away with. It is next
submitted that the house in question is a joint family property as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90986 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/3
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 knowledge of the petitioner and he came to be
implicated at the instance of Chowkidar but then it is submitted
that if the Chowkidar was aware about 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.
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
Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 708 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 one case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90986 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/3
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)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…