Patna High Court
Bharni DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent and compliance with the conditions under Section 438 CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Bharni Devi, was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 for the alleged recovery of 5.4 litres of liquor from a motorcycle she owned. She was not arrested at the spot and the liquor was not found in her conscious possession; the prosecution’s case rested on her ownership of the vehicle used by the alleged offenders. The petitioner, a woman with a clean antecedent, sought anticipatory bail, arguing she was unaware of the misuse of her vehicle. The State opposed the bail. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to a bail bond, sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, with the order to be confirmed if she is found to have a clean record.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case arising under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
- Whether the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle, without possession of the contraband, suffices to justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 30(a) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22126 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2026 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Madhubani
======================================================
Bharni Devi W/o Harkhori Yadav R/o Village - Bela, P.S - Jaynagar, District -
Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Alias Ashok Karn, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Sucheta Yadav, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 07-04-2026 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, 2022.
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 5.400 litres of liquor from a
motorcycle.
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 petitioner came to be implicated based on the fact that she is
owner of the seized vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent
person would use her own vehicle for committing an occurrence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22126 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
2/3
and, thus, would create evidence against herself and, hence,
would get implicated. It is also submitted that petitioner was
completely unaware that Jitendra Kumar would misuse the
vehicle in the manner as alleged who was also apprehended
from the spot along with Shankar Kumar. It is lastly submitted
that it is not the case of the prosecution that they saw a woman
fleeing from the place of occurrence.
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 appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let the petitioner,
above-named, in the event of her arrest or surrender 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 Madhubani Sadar
Excise P.S. Case No. 33 of 2026, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the
B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that thereafter the learned
Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22126 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
3/3
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…