Patna High Court
Ajay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to conditions and pending verification of the petitioners' antecedents.
Summary
Ajay Kumar and Mithilesh Chaudhary applied for anticipatory bail after learning that they might be arrested in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, alleging possession of large quantities of liquor recovered from a house and a hut. The petitioners argued that they have clean antecedents, were not arrested at the scene, and that the liquor was located in a joint family property, making it uncertain that they had knowledge or control over it. They further contended that the concept of deemed possession was abolished by the 2018 amendment to the Act and that the only evidence against them was a confessional statement made by their brother Babloo Kumar while in police custody, which they claimed lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the anticipatory bail. The High Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.500 with two sureties and directed the trial court to verify the petitioners' criminal antecedents before confirming the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in a case of alleged liquor possession under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
- Whether the confessional statement of the brother made in police custody is admissible as evidence.
- Whether the doctrine of deemed possession applies post the 2018 amendment to the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- confessional statement
- joint family property
- deemed possession
- Cr.P.C. Section 438
- B.N.S.S. Section 482
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9581 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2026 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Ajay Kumar S/o Late Sita Ram Chaudhary Resident of village- Gola Bazar,
Parweza Nahar, Police Station- Sonepur, District- Saran
2. Mithilesh Chaudhary S/o Late Sita Ram Chaudhary Resident of village-
Gola Bazar, Parweza Nahar, Police Station- Sonepur, District- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Mili Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 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 the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 103.63 litres of liquor from the house of Babloo
Kumar @ Lichi and 78 litres of liquor from a hut near the canal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession. It is further
submitted that the house in question is a joint family property, as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9581 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/3
such, it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the
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. It is next submitted that petitioners came to be implicated
based on the confessional statement of their brother, namely,
Babloo Kumar @ Lichi in police custody which does not have
any evidentiary value in the eye of law. It is also submitted that
Babloo Kumar @ Lichi was made to confess the name of the
petitioners.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, let the
petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or
surrender 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
Sonepur P.S. Case No. 10 of 2026, subject to the conditions as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9581 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
3/3
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the
B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners
and if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of even one
case, it would be presumed that petitioners had concealed their
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…