Patna High Court
Arti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail is appropriate as no liquor was recovered from the petitioner’s possession and she has a clean antecedent, granting bail subject to conditions.
Summary
Arti Devi was implicated in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 150 litres of Mahua liquor, which was seized from a CNG auto and a motorcycle she owned. She applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that no liquor was found in her conscious possession and that she has a clean criminal record. The State opposed the bail, invoking Section 76(2) of the same Act which restricts pre‑arrest bail. The Patna High Court, relying on the Full Bench decision in Ram Vinay Yadav v. State of Bihar, held that the absence of possession and her clean antecedent justified granting anticipatory bail. The court ordered bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, including cooperation with the trial and no tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC when the offence is punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act despite Section 76(2) restricting pre‑arrest bail.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle from which liquor was recovered makes the owner liable as an accused.
- Whether the lack of recovery of liquor from the petitioner’s conscious possession warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- prohibition law
- excise
- Section 30
- Section 76
- bail conditions
- vehicle ownership
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23717 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2026 Thana- MALSALAMI District- Patna
======================================================
Arti Devi W/o Jai Sahani @ Jay Sahni R/o Village- Sukumarpur, P.O-
Raghopur, P.S- Raghopur, Dist- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Asha Devi, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Asha Devi, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in
connection with Malsalami P.S. Case No. 39 of 2026, F.I.R
dated 22.01.2026 registered for the offences punishable under
Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Recovery is of 150 liters of country made Mahua
liquor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has clean antecedent and she has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that it appears
from the F.I.R that nothing has been recovered from the
conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23717 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/4
been made from a green C.N.G auto bearing Reg. No.
BR01PA3825 and one Hero Honda Bike bearing Reg. No.
BR01HH7849 and petitioner has been made accused merely on
the basis that she is the owner of the motorcycle in question and
one Rama Kumar was apprehended at the place of occurrence.
He next submits that the petitioner has no concern at all with the
alleged recovery of liquor or the co-accused person. 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
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, nothing has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23717 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
3/4
recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the
petitioner has clean antecedent and she has been made accused
merely on the basis that she is the owner of the motorcycle in
question, 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 learned Exclusive Special Court of Excise, Patna City, Patna
in connection with Malsalami P.S. Case No. 39 of 2026, subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23717 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
4/4
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…