Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Saroj DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to bond, sureties and verification of her antecedent.

Summary

Saroj Devi, the owner of a motorcycle, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 32 litres of liquor from the vehicle. She contended that she had no knowledge of the liquor, that the vehicle was misused by her brother, and that she possessed a clean criminal record. The State opposed her request for anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail conditioned on a bail bond of Rs. 500 and two sureties, subject to verification of her antecedent by the trial court. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed forthwith.

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 ownership of the vehicle alone suffices to implicate the petitioner in the offence

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • excise law
  • vehicle ownership
  • clean antecedent
  • Section 30
  • Section 482
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14267 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-310 Year-2025 Thana- VIJAYEPUR District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Saroj Devi W/O Radhelal Rajbhar R/O Vill.- BishunpuraBazar, , P.S-
                 Baghauch Ghat, Dist.- Deoria, U.P.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Satyendra Rai
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Md. Iftekhar Mahmood
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   13-03-2026               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 32 litres of liquor from a motorcycle.

                             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 she came to be

                   implicated based on the fact that she is owner of the seized

                   vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use

                   her own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14267 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
                                            2/3




          create evidence against herself and hence would get implicated,

          it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware

          that her brother (Vishal) would misuse the vehicle in the manner

          as alleged, who was also apprehended from the spot.

                   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 Vijaipur P.S. Case No. 310 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 petitioner and in the

          event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case

          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
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14267 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
                                                          3/3




                        anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.