Patna High Court
Amirika DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent and compliance with the conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Summary
Amirika Devi, a woman with a clean antecedent, sought anticipatory bail after the police registered a case alleging she possessed 54 litres of liquor and a motorcycle under Sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amended) Act, 2018 & 2022. She argued that the liquor was located in a joint‑family house, she had no conscious possession, and the amended Act no longer recognizes deemed possession or a presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, considering these submissions, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.500 bond with two sureties, subject to verification of her criminal antecedent. If any prior case is found, the bail will not be confirmed; if she remains a clean antecedent, the bail will be confirmed. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case of alleged possession of liquor under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amended) Act
- Whether the concept of deemed possession applies after the 2018 amendment
- Whether joint‑family ownership of the premises negates a presumption of possession
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent influences the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- possession
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15032 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-194 Year-2025 Thana- FULKAHA District- Araria
======================================================
Amirika Devi Wife of Rajendra Yadav @ Rajo Yadav Resident of Village-
Hanuman Nagar (Bhaghi), Ward No. 1, P.S.- Phulkanha, District- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nishant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Pronoti Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2026 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 Sections 30(a) and
41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amended) Act, 2018
& 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and
allegation is of recovery of 54 litres of liquor and one
motorcycle from the house of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from her conscious possession. It is further submitted
that the house in question is a joint family property, as such, it
cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15032 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/3
had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house
was within her 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. It is next
submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of
the local person 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, 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, let 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 Fhulkaha P.S. Case No. 194 of 2025, subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15032 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/3
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case,
it would be presumed that petitioner had concealed her
antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order
shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent in that event the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…