Patna High Court
Girja DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted in the present case, subject to verification of antecedents and compliance with the conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
Girja Devi and Ram Bharat Ray applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with a case registered under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act for alleged possession of large quantities of liquor and a seized vehicle. The petitioners argued that they had no conscious possession, the liquor was stored in a joint‑family house, they were not owners of the vehicle, and the FIR omitted the informant’s name, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. The State opposed the bail. The Court, after considering these submissions, directed that provisional anticipatory bail be granted on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 5,000 each with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioners’ criminal antecedents. It further stipulated that if the antecedent checks reveal undisclosed prior cases, the bail would not be confirmed. The application was allowed, with the trial court to confirm bail after antecedent verification.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when alleged possession of liquor is not in conscious possession and the property is joint‑family.
- Whether the amendment removing the concept of deemed possession under the Excise Act affects bail eligibility.
- Whether the omission of the informant’s name in the FIR undermines the prosecution’s case for bail denial.
- What conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC must be satisfied for granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Excise Act — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Excise Act
- possession
- joint family property
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22431 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2025 Thana- PUSA District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Girja Devi W/O Ram Bharat Ray R/O Village- Madapur Chapra, P.O- Puja,
P.S- Puja, District- Samastipur
2. Ram Bharat Ray S/O Late Nathuni Ray R/O Village- Madapur Chapra, P.O-
Puja, P.S- Puja, District- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 30(a) of the Excise Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioner no.1 is a person with clean antecedent and is a
woman and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of one case and the
allegation is of recovery of 4.500 litres of liquor from house of
the petitioner no.2 and one pick-up vehicle was seized and
further, 112.980 litres of liquor was recovered from the pick-up
vehicle.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22431 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/3
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was
recovered from their conscious possession and even the house in
question is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged
with certainty that it were the petitioners, who had kept the
liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within
their knowledge and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018,
the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has
been done away with and it is also submitted that petitioners are
not owners of the seized vehicle and they came to be implicated
at the instance of local person, but the name of the person, who
disclosed the name of the petitioners is not disclosed in the
F.I.R., which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution,
when petitioners have not been implicated based on secret
information.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on
provisional anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22431 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/3
the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each 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 Pusa P. S. Case No.146 of 2025, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court after
accepting the provisional bail bonds of the petitioners shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event,
if it is found that petitioner no.1 has antecedent of even one case
and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of more than one case, then it
would be presumed that petitioners for the purposes of obtaining
anticipatory bail had concealed their antecedent before this
Court, in that event, the present provisional anticipatory bail
order shall not be confirmed, but if on verification, it is found
that petitioner no.1 is a person with clean antecedent and
petitioner no.2 has antecedent of one case only, in that event, the
provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…