Allowed¶6

Subodh Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Mar 2026CR. MISC./17193/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail — provisional anticipatory bail — Bihar Excise Act Section 30(a) — recovery of 9 litres of liquor — joint family property — deemed possession — presumed offender — Excise Act amendment 2018 — Chowkidar informant — criminal antecedent verification — Section 482(2) BNSS conditions — Chautham P.S. Case No. 7 of 2026, Khagaria — Crl. Misc. No.17193 of 2026 — Patna High Court — Satyavrat Verma, J.

What did the court decide?

Provisional anticipatory bail granted: upon arrest or surrender within six weeks, release on bail bonds of Rs. 500/- each with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to Section 482(2) BNSS conditions; confirmation contingent on trial-court verification of clean criminal antecedents. ¶6

Subodh Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, apprehending arrest in Chautham P.S. Case No. 7 of 2026 registered for offences under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act, should be released on anticipatory bail.

¶2

Court's answer

Petitioners, in the event of their arrest or surrender within six weeks, to 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, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The learned Trial Court shall verify the petitioners' criminal antecedents: if even one prior case is found, it will be presumed the petitioner concealed his antecedent and the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed for such petitioner; if verification shows clean antecedents, the provisional order shall be confirmed forthwith.

¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Satyavrat Verma, J.), Criminal Miscellaneous No.17193 of 2026, decided 19-03-2026 — Subodh Singh and Santosh Kumar @ Pankaj Singh v. The State of Bihar. Petitioners apprehended arrest in Chautham P.S. Case No. 7 of 2026 (District Khagaria) for an offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act, the allegation being recovery of 9 litres of liquor from their house. Defence: petitioners were not arrested from the spot; the house is joint family property; the 2018 amendment to the Excise Act removed deemed possession and presumed offender; implication flowed from a Chowkidar on inimical terms. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail — on arrest or surrender within six weeks, release on bail bonds of Rs. 500/- each with two sureties of the like amount, subject to Section 482(2) BNSS conditions. The Trial Court was directed to verify criminal antecedents: concealment of even one prior case bars confirmation of the provisional order, while verified clean antecedents bring forthwith confirmation.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17193 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2026 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria

¶3

======================================================

¶4

1. Subodh Singh S/o Late Banarsi Singh R/o Village- Nawada, PS- Chautham, Distt- Khagaria

¶5

Santosh Kumar @ Pankaj Singh S/o Subodh Singh R/o Village- Nawada, PS- Chautham, Distt- Khagaria

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chandan Kumar Kashyap For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP

¶11

======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 19-03-2026

¶14

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Rabindra Kumar.

¶15

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 9 litres of liquor from the house of the petitioners.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from their conscious possession and the house in question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17193 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026 2/3

¶19

with certainty that it were petitioners who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within knowledge of the petitioners. 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. It is further submitted that they came to be implicated at the instance of Chowkidar with whom they are on an inimical term. It is next submitted that if Chowkidar was aware about the involvement of the petitioners 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.

¶20

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

¶21

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 Chautham P.S. Case No. 7 of 2026 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section Section 482(2) of the

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17193 of 2026(2) dt.19-03-2026 3/3

¶23

BNSS.

¶24

7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of even one case then it would be presumed that petitioners, for the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed their antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed with respect to that petitioner who had concealed his criminal antecedent before this Court, but after verification if it is found that petitioners are person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

¶25

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶26

Sumit/-

¶27

U T

Subodh Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subodh Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Babul @ Babul Vs The State of Bihar

Shambhu Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Sikandar Bhilai Mahto @ Sikandar Kumar @ Sikindar Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Ray @ Manoj Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Kumar Manjhi @ Santosh Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

Sakaldeep Kumar Vs The State of Bihar