Patna High Court
Sabodara DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court extended anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Sabodara Devi sought anticipatory bail after police seized Nepali liquor from four motorcycles in a case registered under Section 317(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances (BNS) Act and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The petitioner claimed that the seized liquor on the third motorcycle, which he owned, was actually in the possession of his brother‑in‑law, Raj Kishore Mahto, and that he had no prior criminal record. Relying on the Patna High Court’s decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, which permits anticipatory bail despite the bar in Section 76(2) when no offence is made out, the court examined whether the petitioner could be held liable. The court found that the liquor was not recovered from the petitioner’s conscious possession and that the precedent supported granting bail. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and several conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in offences under the BNS Act and Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite the bar under Section 76(2).
- Whether the petitioner is liable for liquor seized from a motorcycle driven by his brother‑in‑law and not in his direct possession.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedent justifies the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 317(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- seizure of liquor
- possession
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21647 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-356 Year-2025 Thana- SUPPI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Sabodara Devi Wife of Shambhu Mahto Resident of Village- Sindhorawa,
P.S.- Riga, District- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nityanand, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 Heard Mr. Sumit Jha, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Suppi P.S Case No. 356/2025 registered for the offences
U/s 317(5) of BNS Act and section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act lodged on 30.12.2025 by the informant, Rajan
Kumar Tiwary.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Police intercepted
four motorcycles and recovered/seized as follows:
(i) from first motorcycle bearing
registration no. BR-55-2748 there is
recovery/seizure of 72 liters of
nepali liquor;
(ii) from the second motorcycle
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21647 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/4
bearing registration no. BR-06AH-
19-5 there is recovery/seizure of 72
liters of nepali liquor;
(iii) from the fourth motorcycle
bearing registration no. BR-30AD-
2387 there is recovery/seizure of 72
liters of nepali liquor;
(iv) from third motorcycle bearing
registration no. BR-55E-3426 there
is recovery/seizure of 45 liters of
nepali liquor;
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the third motorcycle belongs to him of which there is
recovery/seizure of 72 liters of nepali liquor. It was actually
being driven by Raj Kishore Mahto, his brother-in-law who had
taken it away and was arrested alongwith the motorcycle. Last
submission is that the petitioner do not have criminal
antecedent.
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
2019 (2) PLJR 1089 wherein it has been held that an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21647 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/4
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, Mr. Bharat Bhushan opposes the
prayer submitting that he owns the motorcycle.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the judgment in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra), as
also that nothing has been recovered from his conscious
possession rather from his brother-in-law, Raj Kishore Mahto,
in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the
privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event
of his 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 Suppi P.S Case No.
356/2025 to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special
Excise Court No.I, Sitamarhi 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.21647 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
4/4
(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 his
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 his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…