Sashikant Yadav @ Shasheekant Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15018 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2025 Thana- DARIHAT District- Rohtas ====================================================== Sashikant Yadav @ Shasheekant Kumar Singh S/o- Avadhesh Yadav @ Avadhesh Singh Resident of Village- Madhurampur PS- Akorhigola DistrictRohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rabindra Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-03-2026

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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 75 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted that petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle but then inadvertently, at para 5, it has been pleaded that petitioner is the owner of the motorcycle, though, at para 7, it is clearly recorded

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15018 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026 2/3 that petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle. It is next submitted that petitioner came to be implicated based on the confessional statement of Vishnu Kumar in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law. 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.

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, let 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 Darihat P.S. Case No. 84 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, it

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15018 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026 3/3 would be presumed that petitioner had concealed his 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 petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T