Patna High Court
Maina DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The High Court granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to conditions and verification of antecedents, with confirmation contingent upon the findings of the trial court.
Summary
The petitioners, Maina Devi and Radhika Devi, were implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for alleged possession of liquor recovered from their residence, which is part of a joint family property. They contended that the liquor was not in their conscious possession, that the amendment to the Excise Act in 2018 abolished the doctrine of deemed possession, and that the FIR did not disclose the informant’s identity. The State opposed their prayer for anticipatory bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence. The High Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to the petitioners furnishing bail bonds and two sureties, and conditioned the order on verification of their criminal antecedents by the trial court. The court further stipulated that if the verification reveals undisclosed antecedents, the provisional bail would not be confirmed, but if the antecedents are as claimed, the bail would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act where alleged possession is in a joint family house.
- Whether the 2018 amendment removing the concept of deemed possession affects the liability of the petitioners.
- Whether the trial court should verify the petitioners' criminal antecedents before confirming anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- deemed possession
- joint family property
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482(2)
- provisional bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10226 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-577 Year-2025 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran
======================================================
1. Maina Devi Son of Jaleshwar Manjhi R/o Village - Mira Musehari, P.S -
Muffasil, District - Saran at Chapra.
2. Radhika Devi Son of Yogendra Manjhi R/o Village - Mira Musehari, P.S -
Muffasil, District - Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suman Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 16-03-2026 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 offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and petitioner
no. 2 has antecedent of two cases under the Excise Act and both
the petitioners are women and allegation is of recovery of 12
liters of liquor from house of petitioner no. 1 and 9.5 liters of
liquor from house of petitioner no. 2 along with 95 liters of
liquor from house of Rajendra Manjhi.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10226 of 2026(3) dt.16-03-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not apprehended 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
with certainty that it were 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 and they came to be implicated at the
instance of local person, but then the name of the person who
disclosed the name of the petitioners is not disclosed in the FIR
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when
admittedly petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent.
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 for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Trial Court
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10226 of 2026(3) dt.16-03-2026
3/3
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No. 577 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 petitioners and
in the event if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of
even one case and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of more than
two cases 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, but after
verification if it is found that petitioner no. 1 is a person with
clean antecedent and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of two
cases only, in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…