Patna High Court
Kunti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, and verification of her criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Kunti Devi, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, where 80 litres of liquor was recovered, 35 litres allegedly from her house. She argued she has a clean antecedent, is a woman, and that the liquor was not in her conscious possession, noting the house is joint family property and the 2018 amendment abolished the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender. The State opposed the bail. The Court considered these submissions and, under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS, granted provisional anticipatory bail subject to a modest bond, sureties, and verification of her criminal antecedent. If any prior case is found, the bail may be revoked; otherwise, it will be confirmed. The order emphasizes the need to verify antecedent before confirming bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.
- Whether the concepts of deemed possession and presumed offender apply post the 2018 amendment.
- Whether the joint family nature of the property affects the presumption of possession.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic and Substance (BNSS) Act — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- deemed possession
- presumed offender
- joint family property
- clean antecedent
- Cr.P.C. Section 438
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2005 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-219 Year-2025 Thana- MALAHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Kunti Devi W/o Harindra Sahani R/o Village- Chintaman Pur, Belahi Nut
Toll, P.S- Malahi, Dist- East Champaran, Motihari
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Isha Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Sunit Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Indu Kumari Srivastava, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 27-01-2026 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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is woman and
allegation is of recovery of 80 litres of liquor out of which 35
litres of liquor is alleged to have been recovered 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2005 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026
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 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.
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 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 Malahi
P.S. Case No. 219 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2005 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026
3/3
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…