Rahul Kumar Singh @ Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22114 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2024 Thana- DUMRAO District- Buxar ====================================================== Rahul Kumar Singh @ Rahul Kumar Son of Ratnesh Kumar Singh @ Ratnesh Singh R/O Vill.- Madhopur Nizma, P.S.- Mahua, District - Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-04-2026
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 (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of twenty-four cases under the Excise Act and allegation is of recovery of 5265 litres of liquor from a truck.
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 and came to be implicated based on the confessional statement of apprehended accused, namely, Krishnandan Rai in police
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22114 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026 2/3 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. It is also submitted that once an accused is implicated in a case relating to excise the police start implicating mechanically either at the instance of the Chawkidar, local person, confessional statement or secret information without holding a proper investigation of the case. It is lastly submitted that petitioner in similar manner earlier also came to be implicated in cases relating to excise.
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 appearing on behalf of 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.96,000/- (Rupees Ninety-six Thousand) 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 Dumraon P.S. Case No. 121 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22114 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026 3/3 B.N.S.S.
7. However, 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 more than twenty-four cases, it 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 has antecedent of only twenty-four cases in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T