Patna High Court
Mathura Dhangad @ Muthura MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted in the absence of arrest and conscious possession, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Mathura Dhangad, applied for anticipatory bail in a case alleging offences under Sections 274 and 275 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 30(a) of the Excise Act, based on the alleged recovery of 52 litres of liquor and destruction of 150 litres of mahua pass from his joint family house. He argued that he was not arrested, no liquor was found in his conscious possession, and the amended 2018 Excise Act had abolished the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail, contending the allegations were sufficient to justify detention. The Court, after considering the clean antecedent of the petitioner and the lack of direct possession, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.500 bond, two sureties, and verification of his criminal record under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would be revoked; otherwise, it would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the accused has not been arrested and no liquor is found in his conscious possession.
- Whether the petitioner can be deemed an offender under the pre‑amendment concept of deemed possession after the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent justifies the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 274, 275, 482(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 274
- Section 275
- Excise Act
- deemed possession
- clean antecedent
- provisional bail
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.92075 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-274 Year-2025 Thana- SATHI District- West Champaran
======================================================
Mathura Dhangad @ Muthura Mahto S/o- Late Deep Dhangad @ Deep
Mahto Vill- Gulab Nagar Dhangad Toli, Ps- Sathi Dist- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Gupta
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad- A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 274 and 275 of the B.N.S. and Section 30(a) of the
Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is
of recovery of 52 litres of liquor from house of petitioner and
150 litres of mahua pass was destroyed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and even the house in
question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92075 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
with certainty that it was the petitioner, who had kept the liquor
in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his
knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the
concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been
done away with and he came to be implicated at the instance of
Chaukidar, but then, it is submitted that if Chaukidar was aware
of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence, then why
he did not inform the police prior to institution of the present
F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
It is reiterated and submitted that petitioner is a person with
clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
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 Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum 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
Sathi P. S. Case No.274 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92075 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is
found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, then it
would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining
anticipatory bail had concealed his 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 is a person with clean antecedent, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…