Patna High Court
Lakshaminiya Devi @ Basanti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Lakshaminiya Devi (also known as Basanti Devi), a housewife with no criminal record, sought anticipatory bail after police, acting on secret information, seized 15 litres of country-made Mahua from a joint house in Sirdala, Nawada, leading to an FIR under Sections 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. The petitioner argued that the seizure was not from her conscious possession and relied on the Patna High Court Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which allows anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) if no offence is made out. The State opposed, contending the recovery was from the hut. The court, considering the precedent, the petitioner’s clean antecedent, and the lack of direct possession, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties. The order directs the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and comply with strict bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act despite the bar under Section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioner can be held liable when the seized contraband was not in her conscious possession.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Section 76(2)
- Section 438
- Mahua seizure
- housewife
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20828 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-432 Year-2025 Thana- SIRDALA District- Nawada
======================================================
Lakshaminiya Devi @ Basanti Devi W/o Late Kameshvar Manjhi R/o Village
- Sherpur, Manjhi Tola, P.S - Sirdala, District – Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar .. ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shabina Talat
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rana Randhir Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Sirdala P.S. Case No. 432/25 instituted on 29/11/25 for the
alleged offence punishable under Sections 30(a), of Bihar
Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 lodged on
29/11/25 by the informant, Priyesh Kumar Vidyarthi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police on secret
information, reached the place, found a lady moving out of the
house and on search, there is recovery/seizure of 15 liters of
country-made Mahua. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is
the joint house and the petitioner is house wife having no
criminal antecedent, got implicated.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in
the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20828 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/3
2019 (2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an
application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar
Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar
under Section 76(2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation
made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made
out.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that the
recovery is from the hut.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that the petitioner is a lady having no criminal antecedent,
nothing has been recovered from her conscious possession or
from the house, in that background, this Court is inclined to
extend her the privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event
of her arrest or surrender before the concerned court within a
period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each in connection with Sirdala P.S. Case No.
432/25 to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Excise
Judge-1, Nawada subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other conditions.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20828 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/3
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/Voter ID/Pan Card
etc.) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the police
station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of her
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of her bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…