Patna High Court
Sumiti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions and verification of her criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Sumiti Devi, sought anticipatory bail after a vehicle registered in her name was seized with 29 litres of liquor, alleged to be a violation of Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act. She contended that she had no knowledge of the driver’s misuse of the vehicle and possessed a clean criminal record. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence. The Court, considering the petitioner’s claim of lack of participation and clean antecedent, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a modest bond, two sureties, and verification of her criminal record by the trial court. The order stipulated that if any antecedent is discovered, the bail would be revoked, otherwise it would be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether the ownership of the vehicle implicates the petitioner in the alleged offence.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged clean antecedent justifies the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- excise law
- liquor seizure
- vehicle ownership
- criminal antecedent
- Section 30 Bihar Excise Act
- Section 482 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19366 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2021 Thana- MALSALAMI District- Patna
======================================================
Sumiti Devi wife of Chandradip Rai @ Chandra Dip Ray Resident Of
Village- Kaimashikoh Patna City, Nagla, Patna City, Patna Rural, Ps - Chowk,
Dist-Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, APP
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Shaheen Begum, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 26-03-2026 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
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman and
allegation is of recovery of 29 liters of liquor from an Auto.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not apprehended 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 inadvertently in the anticipatory
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19366 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
2/3
bail application it has been pleaded that the vehicle was sold,
but then the ownership was not transferred. It is next submitted
that no prudent person would use her own vehicle for
committing an occurrence and thus would create evidence
against herself and hence would get implicated, it is further
submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that her driver
would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged who also fled
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 before the learned Trial Court
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
Malsalami P.S. Case No. 97 of 2021 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.19366 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
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)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…