Patna High Court
CR. MISC./57779/2026 of Satish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar on 19 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57779 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2025 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Satish Kumar Son of Umesh Ram Resident of Village- Mujhi Bajar Ranjita, P.S.- Harsidhi,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57779 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2025 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran ======================================================
Satish Kumar Son of Umesh Ram Resident of Village- Mujhi Bajar Ranjita, P.S.- Harsidhi, District- East Champaran, Motihari
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr.Rajesh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Satyendra Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
19-08-2026
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 22 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 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 knowledge Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57779 of 2026(2) dt.19-08-2026
of the petitioner. It is next submitted that 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 with whom he is on an inimical term. It is further submitted that it does not appear probable that chowkidar would have known who had concealed the liquor in the house.
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 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 Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 103 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 then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57779 of 2026(2) dt.19-08-2026
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.
Sumit/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T