Lalita Devi @ Lalita KumariversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14378 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-431 Year-2025 Thana- CHANDAUTI District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Lalita Devi @ Lalita Kumari W/o Jitendra Chaudhary, D/o Puji Chaudhari
                 Resident of Village- Kujapi, P.S.- Chandauti, Distt.- Gayaji (Gaya)

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Krishna Prabhat
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Shyameshwar Dayal
                 ======================================================
                 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 4.875 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14378 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
                                            2/3




          the house or the liquor kept in the house was within knowledge

          of the petitioner. 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 and

          she came to be implicated at the instance of Chowkidar with

          whom her husband is on an inimical term. It is also submitted

          that in order to coerce her husband into submission, Chowkidar

          implicated the petitioner, when petitioner admittedly is a person

          with clean antecedent.

                   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 Chandauti P.S. Case No. 431 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
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14378 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
                                                          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