Patna High Court
Raj Kaliya DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that provisional anticipatory bail should be granted subject to conditions and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Raj Kaliya Devi, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged possession of liquor. She argued that she has a clean antecedent, is a woman, and that the liquor was found in a joint family house, making it uncertain whether she had knowledge or control over it. The State opposed the bail, contending that the allegations were serious. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that she be released on provisional anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties, subject to verification of her criminal antecedent. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC to a person accused of offences under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged possession of liquor can be established given the joint family ownership of the house.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent satisfies the condition for granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- clean antecedent
- joint family property
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12717 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-765 Year-2025 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya
======================================================
Raj Kaliya Devi Wife of M. P. Manjhi Resident of Village- Hathiar PS- Bodh
Gaya Dist -Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dharmendra Kumar Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nityanand
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 09-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of her
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The 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 05 litres of liquor from the
house of Vijay Manjhi and 05 litres of liquor from the house of
M.P. Majhi.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant being wife of M.P. Manjhi. It is next submitted that
even the house in question is a joint family property and thus, it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12717 of 2026(2) dt.09-03-2026
2/3
cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner, who
had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house
was within her knowledge and she came to be implicated based
on secret information, which is the easiest way to implicate
someone without holding a proper investigation. It is reiterated
and submitted that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of her arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on her furnishing bail-bonds in the
sum 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
Bodh Gaya P. S. Case No.765 of 2025, subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12717 of 2026(2) dt.09-03-2026
3/3
found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, then it
would be presumed that petitioner for the purposes of obtaining
anticipatory bail had concealed her antecedent before this Court,
in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail order shall
not be confirmed, but if on verification, 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)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…