Patna High Court
Rinku DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, finding that procedural lapses and lack of direct possession justified bail.
Summary
Rinku Devi was named in FIR No. 426 of 2024 for alleged illegal manufacture and possession of country-made liquor under Sections 274, 275, 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. She contended that the allegations were fabricated, no liquor was recovered from her house and the police had planted evidence, and she had a clean antecedent. The prosecution opposed anticipatory bail, invoking Section 76(2) of the Prohibition Act. The Court, relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, noted non‑compliance with mandatory recovery procedures under Sections 103/105 of the BNSS and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC. The bail order required a Rs 10,000 bond with two sureties and imposed conditions of cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner despite alleged offences under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether non‑compliance with Sections 103/105 of the BNSS, 2023, warrants denial of bail.
- Whether Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act bars anticipatory bail in such cases.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103, 105, 274, 275, 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illegal liquor
- procedural lapse
- Section 103
- Section 438
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23280 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-426 Year-2024 Thana- LADANIA District- Madhubani
======================================================
Rinku Devi W/O Bachhe Lal Paswan @ Bachchelal Paswan R/O Village-
Pathrahi Sarsara, P.S- Ladaniya, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-04-2026 Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Parmanand Prasad, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in
connection with Ladaniya P.S. Case No. 426 of 2024, F.I.R
dated 24.12.2024 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 274, 275 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 30(a)
of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. Recovery is of 110 liters of country made liquor
from the houses of all the accused persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated and she
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23280 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
2/4
has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further
submits that as per the allegation, 10 liters of country made
(Chulai) liquor has been recovered from the house of the
petitioner. He further submits that nothing has been recovered
from the house of the petitioner rather the police have planted
the same and shown that the recovery has been made from the
house of the petitioner and other accused persons. He further
submits that the similarly situated co-accused persons namely,
Chandrakala Devi and Lalit Paswan have been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25913 of 2025. There is non-compliance
with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section
103 of the BNSS. No case, whatsoever, would be made out
against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of
the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the
pre-arrest bail would not be maintainable.
6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full
Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23280 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
3/4
reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid
down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on
behalf of the parties, this Court, for the limited purpose of grant
of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of
counsel for the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case that the petitioner has clean
antecedent, nothing has been recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner and there is non-compliance of
Section 103/105 of the BNSS, 2023, let the petitioner, above
named, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court
below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of
the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the Exclusive Special Judge Excise
Act, Madhubani in connection with Ladaniya P.S. Case No. 426
of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other
following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23280 of 2026(2) dt.17-04-2026
4/4
on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed her
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…