Patna High Court

Anju DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail, subject to bond, sureties and verification of criminal antecedents.

Summary

The petitioner, Anju Devi, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for alleged possession of 20 litres of country‑made mahua liquor. The FIR alleged the liquor was recovered from a hut, but the petitioner claimed she was not present at the time of seizure and had no role in its sale or consumption. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence. The High Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioner be released on pre‑arrest bail if arrested or surrendered within four weeks, upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of the same amount, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The court also directed the district court to verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, stating that the bail order would lapse if she is found involved in other cases.

Issues considered

Whether pre‑arrest bail can be granted in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
Whether the petitioner’s absence at the time of seizure negates suspicion of involvement.
Whether the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) BNSS are applicable.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 482(2)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)

Subjects

pre‑arrest bail
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Section 30(a)
liquor possession
Cr.P.C. Section 438
BNSS Section 482

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20938 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2026 Thana- PARASI District- Jehanabad
                 ======================================================
                 Anju Devi Wife of Ramjay Chaudhary Resident of Village- Batan Bigha
                 (Lakshmanpur Bath), P.S.- Parasi, District- Arwal

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Ashok Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Rajendra Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   16-04-2026                    Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection

                   with Parasi P.S.Case No.09 of 2026, registered for the offences

                   punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise

                   Act.

                                3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, 20 ltr. of

                   country-made mahua liquor has been recovered from a hut.

                                4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not involved in either

                   sale or consumption of the liquor. He further submitted that at

                   the time of seizure of the liquor, the petitioner was not present in

                   the said hut, which raises suspicion about the complicity of the

                   petitioner in the present case.
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20938 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                                   5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the

                      prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.

                                   6. Having considered the rival submissions made on

                      behalf of the parties, as well as, at the time of the seizure of the

                      liquor, the petitioner was not present in the hut, the petitioner is

                      directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of her

                      arrest or surrender before the district court within a period of

                      four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-

                      (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

                      satisfaction of learned district court where the case is pending in

                      connection with Parasi P.S.Case No.09 of 2026 subject to the

                      conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the

                      Cr.P.C./Section 482(2) of BNSS.

                                   7. The learned district court is directed to verify the

                      criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the

                      petitioner is involved in some other cases as what has been

                      stated in paragraph No.3 of the bail application, this order will

                      automatically lose its force.



                                                (Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-

U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…