Patna High Court
Ranju DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of her antecedent and compliance with bail conditions.
Summary
Ranju Devi was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 54 litres of liquor from her residence, which is a joint family property. She contended that she had no conscious possession of the liquor, had a clean antecedent, and that the prosecution’s case was weak as the informant’s name was omitted from the FIR. The State opposed her request for anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a modest bail bond and two sureties, directing the trial court to verify her antecedent. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would be revoked, otherwise it would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act
- Whether the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender, removed by the 2018 amendment, precludes bail
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 30(a)
- Section 482(2)
- possession
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11948 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2026 Thana- SIWAN MUFFASIL District- Siwan
======================================================
Ranju Devi W/o Vijay Sah @ Vijay Shah Resident of Village- Hasanpurva,
PS- Siwan (Muffasil), Distt.- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajiv Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends her 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 is a woman and
allegation is of recovery of 54 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 her conscious possession and after 2018
amendment in the Excise Act, the concept of deemed possession
and presumed offender has been done away with. It is next
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11948 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
submitted that 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 of the petitioner and she came to
be implicated at the instance of local people, but then the name
of the person, who disclosed the name of the petitioner is not
disclosed in the FIR, which casts an aspersion on the case of the
prosecution.
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 her 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 Siwan Mufassil P.S. Case No. 4 of 2026,
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11948 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed her antecedent before this
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.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…